Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that the Order in Council dated 13th January, 1943, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, amending Regulation 70 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, be annulled.

I shall give directions in accordance with your Address.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL (By Order)

Second reading deferred till the Third Sitting Day after 14th February.

CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Clydebank and District Water"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon the next Sitting Day; and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND

Account ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1942; and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with a copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—[Mr. Assheton.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (WOMEN)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether in view of the announcement of the new terms and conditions of the diplomatic and consular services, he will now set up the committee referred to in the White Paper to consider the admission of women to this service in order that the scheme may be completed at the end of the war?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I see no reason to alter the decision expressed in the relevant paragraph 33 of the White Paper. The question should be reviewed in the light of conditions after, not during, the war.

Mrs. Keir: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be in the best interests of the new foreign service to recruit at the outset from the widest possible field, and surely this cannot be achieved by leaving out of account rather more than half the population?

Mr. Eden: I am a little surprised at my hon. Friend's question, because I had the privilege of meeting a large and representative and very agreeable assembly of women's organisations in this country, and I thought that the arrangement to which we then came, which is set out in the White Paper, was satisfactory to them.

Miss Ward: If we are planning the post-war world in every other service now, why should we not plan it in the diplomatic service as well?

Mr. Eden: I thought that my hon. Friend was among the satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH NORTH AFRICA

Information to Public

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, in conjunction with the Minister of Information, take steps to inform the public of the background facts of the political, economic and social situation in French North Africa so that more informed judgment can be made on the present situation.

Mr. Eden: I will certainly consider in conjunction with the Minister of Information what steps can be taken to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Colonel Cazalet: Is there any censorship, part from the ordinary security censorship, of Press information between this country and the United States of America on the question of North Africa?

Mr. Eden: That is rather a wider question. I received a message yesterday that, so far as North Africa itself is concerned, there is now no political censorship strictly so-called. I should, however, like notice of the question.

Internees and Fascist Laws

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, (1) whether he is satisfied that the civil administration in North Africa is fully carrying out the requests made to it by the American and British Governments shortly after the allied landing, in regard to the revoking of Fascist laws and decrees and the release of anti-Fascist prisoners;
(2) whether he can now give any further figures in regard to the release of anti-Fascist prisoners, including ex-members of the International Brigade, in North Africa?

Mr. Eden: The French member of the Mixed Commission on political prisoners reported to the Commission on 3rd February that 903 prisoners of all types had been released in French Morocco by the unilateral action of the French authorities and that 1,442 remained in detention, of whom a detailed list was being handed over to the lawyers appointed to investigate individual cases. He also reported that 3,965 prisoners remained in detention in Algeria, but that this number included many offenders against ordinary criminal law as well as strictly political prisoners. He said that the French authorities were proceeding to release many of these on their own account, as they had done in Morocco, and would supply full details to the Commission of those who remained in detention with a view to the examination of individual cases. My hon. Friend may have noticed that the statement issued by General Giraud's headquarters on 6th February declared that the policy of releasing individual internees would be continued extensively and that the case of any internee who asked to rejoin a

fighting unit would be immediately examined.
As regards the revocation of measures inspired by Fascist ideologies, my hon. Friend will have read General Giraud's statement of 29th January to the effect that he had studied racialism and its legislative application in Germany too deeply to approve it, and that he proposed to proceed progressively and methodically to the reversal of such legislation in North Africa. General Giraud's War Council on 6th February confirmed the restoration of Jewish property and the access of Jewish children to primary and secondary schools and declared that other measures were being studied.

Mr. Strauss: Arising out of that reply, particularly in reference to General Giraud's statement, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the abrogation of Fascist laws will not be considered as purely a French matter in this area, but that the application of the principles of the Atlantic Charter will be a matter for the United Nations and their responsibility as a whole?

Mr. Eden: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the answer I have given and General Giraud's statement will show that considerable progress has been made in the last few weeks. I know that our Minister Resident in Algiers is in touch with the French authorities on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say that the 27 Communist Deputies have been released?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I saw that reported some time ago.

Mr. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the statement issued yesterday by General de Gaulle that there are 15,000 Frenchmen who are his supporters interned?

Mr. Eden: I have given the information which came from our Minister in Algiers, and I am certain that the information, as far as he can possibly check it, is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN COLONIES, AFRICA

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any preliminary consideration has taken place


respecting Italian colonies in Africa; and whether the question will be associated with the position and status of all colonial areas in relationship to the United Nations in the post-war world?

Mr. Eden: The future of the Italian colonies in Africa is one of many post-war problems to which preliminary examination is being given. In considering this particular question, due regard will be paid to the post-war policy of the United Nations in relation to colonial areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — SENOR CASALS

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Spanish Government in favour of an amnesty for Senor Don Pablo Casals, or extradition to a country where his safety and liberty will be assured?

Mr. Eden: I have no information about Senor Casals' whereabouts, but I am making inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Compassionate Leave

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether an evening pass has been granted to No. 1155648, Corporal A. J. Ward since 1st January, 1943; and whether, as this airman and his four brothers volunteered for the fighting Services and since the death of his father there is no one to run the business, he is now prepared to grant a period of compassionate leave in order to prevent the closing of this village shop?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): This airman did not apply for a sleeping-out pass in January, his reason being that a change in local omnibus time-tables would have prevented him from returning to duty by the stipulated hour on the following morning. When he drew attention to this, he was told that an extension of time would be granted which would obviate the difficulty. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not aware of any circumstances which would warrant a further grant of compassionate leave at this stage, bearing in mind that this airman was given seven days' compassionate leave in December to run on after seven days' privilege leave.

This leave was granted as a result of the airman's application dated 5th December, since when he has made no other.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless his decision is changed, five young men will lose their livelihood after the war? If this airman makes a further application for compassionate leave, will it be considered by the Air Ministry?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do not understand my hon. Friend's reference to a decision of mine. I do not know what decision he means. We have given several decisions in favour of this airman. If he makes a further application to his commanding officer for compassionate leave, it will certainly be considered.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this airman has made an application for release and also for compassionate leave? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider a further application for compassionate leave?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not aware that he has sent in applications for release and compassionate leave. If he has done so, they will be considered. An application for release must have the support of the Ministry of Food.

Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Yugoslavian Government is in agreement with the British Government's action in allowing Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia to join the Royal Air Force?

Sir A. Sinclair: As I have already informed the Hon. Member, the Yugoslav Government were consulted about Prince Alexander's enlistment, and they raised no objection. They rightly took the line that any consequential action was a matter for His Majesty's Government.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Considering that this is the third occasion on which I have had to ask this Question, is it not a fact that the Yugoslav Government have been very reluctant to endorse this dangerous and blatant class differentiating action of His Majesty's Government, and hence the evasiveness of His Majesty's Government—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Ground Staff, Chengtu

Sir. Arnold Gridley: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement with regard to 200 men of the Royal Air Force ground staff unemployed in Chengtu since their evacuation from Burma last May?

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the continued presence of some 200 men of the Royal Air Force ground staff at Chengtu; and whether he can give an assurance that measures have been taken to evacuate them to India in the immediate future?

Sir A. Sinclair: The men referred to, who have remained in China at the request of the Chinese authorities, have, for the most part, been gradually withdrawn.

Aircraft, Tunisia

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient aircraft of a type superior to the Junker 88, Messerschmidt 109F and Focke Wulf 190 in Tunisia to ensure British and American ascendancy?

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member may be assured that in planning the composition of the Allied Air Forces in this theatre the nature of the opposition has been taken fully into account.

Mr. Stokes: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been called to a report by a correspondent in the "Daily Telegraph" on 2nd February, in which it was stated categorically that we had nothing there equal to the fighers of the German air force, and that it was only the gallantry of our pilots which kept the Germans on the ground?

Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. Friend that his informant was mistaken. The Spitfire V and the Lightning are fully equal at medium heights to any fighter that the Germans have got out there, and the Spitfire IX in all respects. The results of the fighting show the truth of that appreciation, because in the first three months of the campaign in North Africa 607 Axis aircraft were destroyed for the loss of 250 Allied machines.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to study that report, because that newspaper is supposed to be reliable?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (SHIPPING COMPANIES)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air what requests he has had from shipping companies to operate air services from this country after the war; and whether any such request has been granted?

Sir A. Sinclair: Three shipping companies have recently asked for authority to operate air services from this country after the war; and a fourth has asked for an assurance that shipping companies will be allowed to participate in post-war air transport developments. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport on 3rd February in reply to the hon. Baronet who sits for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Sir R. Rankin).

Mr. Perkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman again tell the House what those reasons are?

Sir A. Sinclair: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to refer to the answer which I have mentioned, he will see them.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

American Dive-Bombers

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production the cause of the delay of some two years between the order and delivery to this country of the first dive-bombers from America, for the most part of which time America was neutral and there was not a question of priority being necessary.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): The interval between the dates of the orders for these aircraft and their delivery was occupied mainly in overcoming exceptional difficulties of design, necessitating modifications dictated by operational experience and the solution of problems inherent in the rapid expansion of the production of new types of aircraft.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that two years' delay is comparatively small in introducing any new type of aircraft?

Minister's Speeches

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production the number of meetings of a public, private and works character which he has addressed in his capacity as Minister of Aircraft Production since he took up his present appointment?

Sir S. Cripps: The numbers in the first two categories mentioned in the Question are "Two" and "None", respectively. As regards the third, I have addressed the main body of the workers at six factories and met with the joint production committees at fifteen.

Mr. Liddall: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman find addressing these meetings a handicap or otherwise to the efficient administration of his Department?

Sir S. Cripps: I can only give the hon. Member the opinion of the managements of the factories, who have uniformly thanked me for addressing their workers.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his speeches are very much appreciated, both in the factories and outside?

Cargo-Carrying Aircraft

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether he will make a statement as to the progress made in the manufacture of cargo-carrying aircraft.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my predecessor on 9th September last.

Major Lyons: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise the great importance at this stage of the war of this type of aircraft, because what was good enough last September will not do in February? Can he make some statement on the subject, in view of the great public interest in it, because people feel very anxious about it?

Sir S. Cripps: On the last occasion my predecessor stated that orders had been placed and a suitable production programme arranged, and that seemed to be a satisfactory answer.

Major Lyons: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether that suitable programme has reflected itself in

suitable deliveries, or is it still a programme on paper?

Sir S. Cripps: It has shown itself in suitable progress with the programme.

Major Lyons: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

Workers, Oxford (Hostels)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal to set up hostels for single aircraft workers in Oxford to ease the serious housing shortage there; and whether he is in a position to announce a decision.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir, and I hope to be in a position to come to a decision at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ATHLIT CAMP)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider instituting a voluntary or paid work scheme at Athlit Camp, in Palestine, so that persons detained there can be employed on the restoration of the neighbouring castle of Athlit or on some other suitable work?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, and I am in consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-AMERICAN CARIBBEAN COMMISSION

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement regarding the nature and scope of the work of the joint Anglo-American Commission in the Caribbean Sea; whether any agreement was arrived at between the British and American chairmen of the Commission at their recent discussions in London as to the immediate work to be put in hand; and who will be responsible for the execution of decisions taken?

Colonel Stanley: The Anglo-American Caribbean Commission is intended to facilitate co-operation between the United


States Government and His Majesty's Government in matters affecting progress and development in the Caribbean area. The main objects of the recent discussions in London were to make arrangements to secure the most harmonious co-operation between the American and British Sections of the Commission and to establish appropriate administrative machinery for carrying out its work. It will be for the Commission to determine their immediate programme of work in the light of these discussions. I would emphasise that the Commission is an advisory body and that the responsibility for carrying out its recommendations rests with the Governments concerned, including, of course, those of the British Colonies in the area.

Mr. Riley: May I understand, therefore, in reference to the decisions that will be arrived at by the Anglo-American Commission and the recommendations they make, that the carrying-out of those decisions and the financing of them rests with the Colonial Governments?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it that this Commission will be a permanent Commission operating after the war?

Colonel Stanley: I could not answer for the exact form, but I certainly hope that something of this character will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (WHITLEY COUNCIL)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when was a joint Whitley Council established in Trinidad and what is its constitution?

Colonel Stanley: I am making inquiries with reference to this matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction in the West Indies at the slowness with which the powers of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, are being administered; and whether he will take steps to end delays due to lack of whole-hearted

co-operation between the Stockdale Commission and the local Colonial Government and those due to his Department?

Colonel Stanley: I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction being expressed in the West Indies in this matter. Nor is there any lack of whole-hearted co-operation between Sir Frank Stockdale and the local Governments. While there have been some delays in certain cases, the hon. Member will realise that war conditions make it impossible to proceed as rapidly as would be desirable. I am certainly anxious to expedite the procedure under the Act as far as possible, and I discussed this question with the Comptroller during his recent visit. In the light of this discussion I am considering what further steps can be taken.

Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that in the West Indian Press great dissatisfaction has been expressed at the slowness with which the development Act has been carried out, and can he say who is responsible? It is a question which is constantly being raised.

Colonel Stanley: I think it would be well worth while for the hon. Gentleman to suggest to his correspondents that the person chiefly responsible is Hitler, because it is the war conditions that make it impossible to proceed as fast as we should like.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we going to put upon Hitler all the responsibility that should attach to the Colonial Secretary?

Colonel Stanley: No, Sir; I am perfectly prepared to bear the responsibility that should rightly attach to me, but the hon. Gentleman must not put the blame for everything always on to the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (LAND SETTLEMENT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Lands in Kenya has assured the Legislative Council of the Government's intention of doing everything possible to strengthen white settlement; that the Government has indicated its willingness to provide additional money required for the settlement programme; and whether he is satisfied that these plans include adequate provision for native needs and development?

Colonel Stanley: I have not yet received a report of the debate in the Legislative Council to which the hon. Member refers, but I understand that the Kenya Government have recently given an assurance that there has been no change in policy since the recommendations of the Settlement Committee of 1938 were accepted by the then Secretary of State before the war. This policy involved the provision of the necessary finance by the raising of a loan. The scheme is concerned only with the closer settlement of the Highlands.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that until now all references to further settlement in this area has been in regard to white settlement and not African settlement, and while one is quite important, is not the other just as important?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir; but I do not gather from the reports I have seen that this was an enunciation of a new war policy, but merely a reaffirmation of a particular policy declared before the war.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman find out from the authorities exactly what are their plans regarding native settlement?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hannah: Is Kenya willing to receive any Jewish refugees?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD HAULAGE (CLEARING HOUSES)

Captain Strickland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of further investigation and the support of manufacturers' and traders' associations, he will give fresh consideration to the value of utilising the experience of clearing houses in organising effective and economic operation and co-ordination of road transport vehicles, particularly as regards the best use of the longer distance vehicles, of which the majority now in use belong to the smaller operators?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Some time ago I met, on behalf of my Noble Friend, a deputation from the Conference of Road Transport Clearing Houses. Later my Noble Friend himself

received the leaders of certain associations and traders. In the light of these representations, my hon. Friend has given the most careful consideration to the question of using clearing houses in the organisation of his road haulage scheme. He has come to the conclusion that, in general, he can operate the road haulage scheme most effectively and economically by using to the full the organisation of the controlled road haulage firms themselves and that he would not be justified in arranging for the general employment of intermediaries between the road haulage organisation and the Government Departments or other consignors of traffic. There may, of course, be cases where it is still to the advantage of a merchant or trader that a clearing house should act as his transport department and my Noble Friend would make no objection to such an arrangement, but it would have to be understood that the clearing house looked to the merchant or trader for its remuneration and that it would not be possible for the Government to allow commissions to the clearing house on the rates which its road haulage organisation will charge for the transport of goods.

Captain Strickland: Has my hon. Friend given due consideration to the communication which he has received from the London Chamber of Commerce pointing out the extraordinary value of these clearing houses, particularly as they assist the small operators, of whom some 10,000 have now indicated their desire that these clearing houses should be continued? May I also ask whether, before a decision is taken, the hon. Gentleman would be willing to receive a further deputation?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have considered all the representations, and my Noble Friend has given most careful consideration to the whole subject. I can hold out no hope of any change of policy, but if my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that a deputation will serve a useful purpose, I shall be very glad to receive it.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that the closest collaboration is necessary, for the success of this or any other scheme, with those concerned in these industries?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Every step that we can take to secure closer collaboration is required.

Sir John Mellor: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread support for the appeal contained in the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I know what the support is, but we have to look at the technical merits of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY WORKERS (TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS)

Mr. Granville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether adequate transport arrangements have now been completed for war workers in the industrial town of which he has been informed?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The factory management have not yet reached a decision on the proposal made to them, but they are meeting a representative of the bus company on Friday, and I hope that an agreed settlement will then be made.

Mr. Granville: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that these discussions have been going on for months as to whether the bus company or the factory management shall pay for extra buses, and that meanwhile workers are going home late at night and that production is suffering? Will he not make a decision himself in the matter?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a very complicated question, and delay is inevitable, because many different authorities have to be consulted. If my hon. Friend desires, I will show him the time-table of what has happened, and I think he will see that the delay cannot be laid to the charge of my Department or of the Regional Transport Commissioner.

Mr. Granville: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice to the hon. Gentleman that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — INJURED COASTGUARD (PAY)

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that a watcher-in-charge, coastguard service, who was, when going on duty on 10th December last, fired on and wounded by a sentry and who is still unfit for duty, received no pay to the end of January

and now has been placed on half pay; what is the cause of this delay and treatment and will he prevent it in future?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I regret that, partly owing to difficulty in obtaining a statement from the injured man, there was delay in dealing with this case, and I am indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend for bringing it to my attention. My Ministry at first assumed that the disabled coastguard would be considered as having suffered a war injury, and that, in consequence, the Ministry of Pensions would grant the appropriate compensation. In order that he should not be left any longer unprovided for, we decided on 27th January that, pending a definite decision as to his rights, he should receive sick pay as from the date of the accident. We subsequently found that the coastguard could not be regarded as having suffered a war injury. My Ministry thereupon decided to pay him at the full workmen's compensation rate as from 11th December. I am consulting my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the hope that we may clarify the position of coastguards and may ensure that in future there shall be no undue delay in dealing with such questions as this.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that this is rather an unmerciful way in which to treat a man of that kind?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think this man has suffered hardship, which I regret.

Sir Percy Harris: Why was the man regarded as not suffering a war injury?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Because the accident took place in circumstances similar to those in which a number of civilians have been injured, and it was decided that the civilians were not injured as a result of actual or imagined enemy attack.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TRANSPORT (CHEAP RAILWAY FARES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is now in a position to state what reduction in passengers carried has taken place in the London transport area arising from the withdrawal of cheap fares and other facilities; and whether, in the case of any services that


show no reduction since the withdrawal, he will consider the re-establishment of the former fares, particularly from and to Greater London areas?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have received very-few returns of railway traffic in the London area since I answered a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 16th December; I am, however, asking for further information and will communicate with him again. I have not yet had any evidence that there is any railway service in the London area on which there has been no reduction of passenger traffic since the cheap day tickets were abolished. But even if this had happened on some services, it might be due to the diversion from road to rail caused by the abolition of Green Line Coaches and by the other measures which we have taken to restrict the use of omnibuses. In general, I think it is fair to say that the abolition of cheap day tickets has secured the reduction in non-essential travel for which we hoped, and for that and other reasons, I cannot encourage my hon. Friend to expect that his proposal will be accepted.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, if he finds on inquiry that the withdrawal of certain services or facilities has not led to a reduction in the number of passengers who travelled, those facilities should not be restored?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There are many other factors involved, especially diversion from road to rail. If my hon. Friend examined the question, I think he would see that it is extremely difficult to give differential treatment to one service, other services not receiving the same treatment.

Mr. Sorensen: Why should that be so, seeing that the whole traffic is co-ordinated under one authority?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend wishes that there should be differential treatment of any service on which it has been proved that there had not been a reduction of traffic. I think we could not do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CINEMA FILMS, NORTH AFRICA

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the

elimination of German and Vichy films from the cinema screens in North Africa has created a shortage; and whether he will ensure that running time now available will be used by British films showing Britain's contribution to the efforts now being made in that country by the United Nations?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): In agreement with the American authorities a number of feature films, shorts and newsreels of the kind indicated by the hon. Member have already been despatched to North Africa, and we are doing our best to ensure a regular supply for the future.

Commander Locker-Lamson: When will the Fascist propaganda in North Africa be stopped?

Mr. Thurtle: I do not think that matter arises from this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS LICENCE FEE

Mr. Messer: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered a number of communications from wireless licence holders expressing their intention to withhold part of their fee; what reason has been given for this action; and what action he proposes to take?

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): I understand that the persons in question base their intention on dissatisfaction with an aspect of the B.B.C. programme policy. Licences will not be issued unless they pay the whole of the fee.

Mr. Messer: Is the Postmaster-General not aware that licences have been issued, notwithstanding their action, and will he take into consideration the fact that there is a very big feeling that the B.B.C. are prejudiced in favour of sensationalism in their programmes?

Captain Crookshank: I have no doubt, if licences have been issued, that the proper sum has been paid by somebody, somehow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT MONUMENTS

Mr. Hannah: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether his Department is willing to take over any ancient monument,


certified as worthy of preservation by its inspectors, whose owners so desire; and, if not, what are the necessary conditions?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): My hon. Friend will realise that during the war there is difficulty in undertaking fresh responsibilities for ancient monuments, since labour and materials could not be diverted for works of preservation. But any important offer would, of course, be gladly received and sympathetically considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Camp (General Conditions)

Mr. Jewson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that the feeding and general treatment of the men in a camp the name of which has been sent to him are in all respects satisfactory?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I am satisfied that the feeding and treatment of the men in the establishment referred to are satisfactory.

Officers' Allowance (London)

Commander Galbraith: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why certain officers required to work in London for an indefinite period do not receive the usual allowances paid to naval officers serving at headquarters?

Mr. Alexander: I presume that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the special duty allowance payable to officers serving at the Admiralty as part of the headquarters staff. The basis of this allowance is not cost of living but responsibility, and payment is dependent upon the actual performance of Admiralty headquarters staff duties, whether in London or elsewhere. Officers who are not performing Admiralty headquarters staff duties are not eligible for the allowance, even though they may live and work in London.

Commander Galbraith: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many of these officers who are serving in London are not receiving this allowance and are therefore in very serious financial difficulties, and that this is a matter of very great injustice? Will he not look into the matter again?

Mr. Alexander: I am always willing to look into a matter again, but I am assured that naval officers in many other stations consider their cost of living to be as high as that of London.

Commander Galbraith: Surely that is not the case.

Demagnetisation Stations

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to protect vessels against magnetic mines, he contemplates, as in the case of the Swedish Admiralty, the establishment of demagnetising stations?

Mr. Alexander: Demagnetisation stations have long since been established in British and Allied ports throughout the world, in order to give merchant ships and warships of the United Nations protection against magnetic mines.

Cargo-Warships (Mr. W. S. Burn's Proposals)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the proposals made by Mr. W. S. Burn to construct a cargo warship and vessels of fast speed?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. The Admiralty have given prolonged and careful consideration, from both operational and technical standpoints, to Mr. Burn's proposals throughout their various stages. It is not possible to set out adequately the results of these investigations within the limits of a short answer. For this reason, and in view of the special interest that has been taken in Mr. Burn's suggested designs, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a relatively detailed statement which I have had specially prepared.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged for that, but may I ask whether notice has been taken of the recent pronouncement of the Chamber of Shipping on the subject of speedy vessels, and whether that is also referred to in the statement to be circulated?

Mr. Alexander: The statement which is to be circulated deals entirely with Mr. Burn's proposals, but I have had notice taken of the Chamber of Shipping's proposals, and, of course, all the considerations they have in mind.

Following is the statement:

PROPOSALS OF MR. BURN.

The Admiralty have carefully considered the various proposals of Mr. W. S. Burn for the building of "cargo-warships," whose object is to reduce the loss of merchant shipping tonnage from U-boat atacks.

2. The principal features of the designs which Mr. Burn has proposed are:—

(a) Reduced visibility.
(b) Higher speeds.
(c) The fitting of a flight deck to enable an aeroplane to fly off or land.
(d) The fitting of anti-torpedo "blisters," or internal protection, and greater sub-division by internal bulkheads.

3. The Admiralty have considered the "cargo-warship," both in its capacity as a warship—that is, its capacity to beat off enemy attack—and in its capacity as a cargo-carrying ship.

Capacity as a Warship.

4. The principal defensive features of the design are high angle/low angle armament, flight deck and torpedo protection.

The anti-submarine and anti-aircraft armament shown in the design is very small and ineffective. Indeed, so far from possessing the armament of a warship, the proposed vessel would be considerably less well armed than the average British merchant ship, and the necessity for keeping the flight deck clear of obstruction would make it difficult to provide effective armament.

5. The flight deck is obstructed by a large deck house forward which would make flying-on operations hazardous. In addition, the flying deck is so near the water-line that flying operations would only be possible in calm water. In order to make flying operations possible under any conditions, the whole of the flight deck arrangements would have to be re-modelled and the flight deck would have to be raised considerably higher above the water-line. This would entirely destroy the chief claim of the design, namely, invisibility.

6. The torpedo protection provided in the form of an internal "blister," would be quite ineffective against torpedo charges of the sizes normally used. This view is based both on experiments and on war experience.

7. It must be stated, therefore, that, as a warship, the design has nothing to recommend it.

Capacity as a Cargo Ship.

8. The low freeboard, the absence of superstructure and the need to use part of the capacity of the main hull to house the officers and crew, leave the proposed vessel seriously short of cargo space, which is the fundamental requirement of a cargo ship.

9. It is the policy of the Government to build as many fast merchant ships as the capacity for producing such vessels allows It must be borne in mind that a great deal of capacity which would be suitable for this purpose is inevitably absorbed by the large numbers of high-powered naval vessels required for the protection of shipping generally.

10. In fast merchant vessels, as in all other merchant vessels, the need for reliable propelling machinery which will operate continuously without failure, is imperative and especially so in war time. This need must often overrule the possible use of new types of marine engines of unproven reliability. The proposals for propelling machinery of the "cargo-warship" are not very definite. They would seem to cover Diesel-electric propulsion as well as turbo-electric, which latter the designer considers to lack the virtue' of low fuel consumption, but they appear to incline towards the use of engines "of almost aeronautical type." It must be emphasised that the development of an experimental type of highly rated oil-engine would involve much effort which could otherwise be devoted to other forms of immediately useful production. In any case such an engine would require a considerable time to come into production. Moreover, highly rated engines of this type, to judge by aeronautical experience, would have a short life compared to that needed for continuous ocean service.

11. There are other objections in the proposed design, but sufficient has been said to show that it fails in the fundamental objects for which it is intended.

Submarine Warfare (Information)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any arrangement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America with regard to public statements on the number of Allied vessels sunk by the enemy and the estimate of enemy submarines?

Mr. Alexander: The Prime Minister intends to deal with the U-boat position in the course of the statement which he will be making shortly on the war situation. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will await that statement, and if he is not then satisfied it will be open to him to put a further Question.

Mr. Shinwell: I appreciate that, but I am not so much concerned about the actual merits of the case. What I want to know is why are these differential statements made? Why is it that in the American Press we can read about losses and all matters relating to the U-boat campaign and yet we cannot get the information here? Is there any unified effort to provide information?

Mr. Alexander: We are in touch with the American authorities, but I cannot say that in every case statements published in this country have been official.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it be possible to enter into some arrangement—it may be


difficult, I agree—with the United States Government Navy Department, so that statements are of a uniform character, in order to avoid confusion?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I like to confuse the enemy.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the Prime Minister's reply, may I ask—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Attorney-General whether he will consult with the Law Society with a view to raising the present income limit below which applicants to the Courts of Justice are able to take advantage of the Poor Persons Procedure?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The present system of affording legal aid to the poorer sections of the community is under constant review, and will require further consideration and possibly amendment after, and possibly before, the termination of the war. The system depends for its efficient working on the cordial support of the solicitors' profession, and owing to the heavy demands on that profession made by the claims of national service, it is at present subject to great strain. It would not, therefore, be practicable at present to raise the income limit.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the present income limit, which, in fact, is £4 a week, combined with the high cost of living, effectively prevents most working people at the moment from instituting, for example, divorce proceedings, which normally cost about £50? Is it not wholly wrong that laws passed by Parliament should not be available to the whole community?

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the difficulties of the question, but my hon. Friend will know that under a scheme recently introduced for aid of this kind to persons in the Armed Forces considerable relief has been given to the ordinary administration of the Poor Persons Procedure, the solicitors' profession is now being carried on with little more than one-third of those who were in it before the war, and to put an extra burden on

them at this time would really cause the machine to break down.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Would the right, hon. and learned Gentleman, in considering any revision such as has been indicated, remind the War Office that a man above the rank of sergeant is deserving of legal aid equally as much as a man below that rank?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL (EXPORTS TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES)

Major Markham: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) how many tons of coal, and coke were exported to Eire in the years 1940, 1941 and 1942;
(2) what quantities of coal and coke were exported to neutral countries during the years 1940, 1941 and 1942?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): It would not be in the public interest to publish the figures for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks.

Major Markham: In view of that answer, could the hon. Gentleman say whether the present policy of continuing the export of coal to neutral countries when production is falling off is justifiable?

Mr. Smith: I think the hon. and gallant Member can take it that consideration is being given to that as well as other things.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Venereal Disease (Treatment)

Dr. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for War since when have the drugs sulphapyridine and sulphathiazole been used by Army medical officers in Great Britain for the treatment of syphilis; what Departmental circular or instructions issued to medical officers contain this advice; and what representations have been made to the War Office authorities to see that the best drug is used for our soldiers when disabled by this disease?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The drug used in the Army for the treatment o syphilis are neoarsphenamine, bismuth and in some cases mapharside. I am sorry that owing to an oversight the wrong drugs were named for the treatment of this disease in the answer given


to my hon. Friend on 28th January. Instructions about the use of these drugs are contained in the specific and general instructions issued to medical officers employed in the treatment of venereal diseases. The Army medical authorities receive suggestions from time to time for improvements in this treatment. These suggestions are always carefully considered.

Dr. Morgan: While I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the correction, could he give the House an assurance that this dreadful mistake of recommending the wrong drugs was not made by his Departmental Venereal Adviser, but by some official?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, I can give that assurance. It was made in the secretarial department.

Mr. McKinlay: Does that mean that the professional man cannot make any mistake?

Mr. Henderson: Not in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (STANDARD OF LIVING)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister whether, on his recent visit to Cyprus, he was informed of the unrest due to a deterioration in the standard of living in the island; and whether, as a result, any proposals are being made to improve the standard of living?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In fact I was gratified by the enthusiasm of all classes and both races and religions for the common cause.

Mr. Dugdale: Was the right hon. Gentleman not informed that although wages of Government employees have gone up by 100 per cent., the cost of living has gone up 150 per cent., and, in view of the very gallant record of the island, will he not take some steps to see that some improvement is made to meet the conditions?

The Prime Minister: It was pointed out to me on all sides that the island had never had such a time in its whole history with this powerful garrison spending its money there. Millions of pounds are being spent. Indeed, I cautioned the islanders not to cast away their money too improvidently but to keep it for rainy days which might lie ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN WARS

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that this is the fifth war for which Germany has been responsible in less than a century, the Government has a plan to prevent her starting a sixth war?

The Prime Minister: This is certainly a fitting subject for thought, and will acquire more precise importance when the present unpleasantness has been ended satisfactorily.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Has not Germany by her shameful record forfeited her right to nationhood? That being so, have the Government considered the policy of "No more Germany, no more war"?

The Prime Minister: I think that these are very large topics to embark upon at Question Time.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the seventh and eighth wars?

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE MINISTRIES (CO-OPERATION)

Mrs. Tate: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that co-operation between the three Service Ministries is satisfactory?

The Prime Minister: The co-operation between the three Service Ministries has already reached a high level. It is constantly improving under the pressure of events, the efforts of the Government, and the guidance of the House.

Mrs. Tate: Is it a fact that following a recent demonstration the Secretary of State for War was made to appear in front of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Air, and accused of making propaganda for the Army against the Air Force?

The Prime Minister: I know of no such machinations.

Commander Bower: Are we to understand, in respect of this somewhat unfortunate demonstration which took place, that all was afterwards complete harmony, between the War Office and the Air Ministry?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: May I ask my right hon. Friend with great respect to bear in mind that an interchange of Ministers sometimes has the effect of reducing prejudice and too rigid loyalties?

The Prime Minister: I am always being criticised because Ministers in Parliamentary offices interchange too often.

Mr. Shinwell: On this subject of interchange of Ministers, would my right hon. Friend accept the guidance of the House?

The Prime Minister: On any occasion when it accords with my own opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR INDUSTRIES (IMMOBILE LABOUR)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Production what steps are being taken to establish war industries in areas where there is a substantial supply of immobile labour and no work available in the area?

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): By co-operation between the Departments concerned, new war production is directed away from congested areas to areas with available labour, but in determining the location of any particular undertaking, other factors besides labour supply have to be taken into account. At the present stage of the war, however, opportunities for establishing additional production in areas with available labour are more likely to be found by the transfer of existing production units from congested areas, and, as I have explained on previous occasions, my colleagues and I are co-operating in making arrangements for this purpose wherever it is practicable to do so.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any single case in which this is happening?

Mr. Lyttelton: The changes in programme which have been instituted are of very short date. I think these transfers will now become a matter of urgent action.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that unless industries are transferred to areas where there is immobile labour a great deal of labour available for the war effort will not be utilised at all.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think it is a very important point. We must use our efforts to bring the work to the immobile labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY LOUD-SPEAKER MUSIC (PERFORMING RIGHT)

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Production whether his attention has been called to a decision recently made in the courts that the playing by loud-speaker of the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme "Music While you Work" in a factory is a public performance, involving the management in infringement of copyright; and whether he will, without waiting for the confirmation or otherwise of this decision, and without prejudice to any rights of any parties, ensure that "Music While you Work" is heard in every factory where it contributes towards better production?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am advised that the result of this decision is that factory managements who wish to broadcast "Music While you Work" programmes must secure the permission of the owners of the copyright in the items concerned. I understand, however, that appropriate arrangements for this purpose can be made without difficulty. In reply to the second part of the Question, I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view, but regard must be given to the fact that radio equipment is directed first to the needs of the Fighting Services.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 5,000 factories are using this music, and that it aids production very materially. Is it wise to ask each of these 5,000 factories to make separate arrangements, with a multiplicity of copyright transactions? Could he not, by some general direction, either indicate to these factories that they may pay on Government account or, better still, have some general clearance for them, so that they need not be inhibited from using this means of increasing production?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am advised that on application to the Performing Right Society some such global arrangement can toe made without difficulty.

Sir I. Fraser: Is it intended that 5,000 factories shall each apply to the Performing Right Society, or, will my right hon. Friend act as their agent and do it for all of them?

Mr. Lyttelton: If there is any way in which I can help I shall be glad to do so.

Captain Strickland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Performing Right Society are receiving from the B.B.C. a licence fee, that they are also drawing a similar fee from the artists who sing these songs, and that they are now to receive a similar fee from the factories? Is it not time that this was stopped?

Mr. Lyttelton: These matters are quite outside the Question, and I must have notice of them.

Mr. Woodburn: Could the Performing Right Society be informed that the B.B.C. will cease to perform this music if they insist on these blackmailing fees?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING STEEL

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Production what complaints he has received regarding shortage of steel in the shipyards; and what is the reason?

Mr. Lyttelton: There have been no serious complaints of any shortage of steel for shipbuilding during the last few months. One or two isolated instances have occurred in which repair work has been held up by delays in the delivery of plates. The interference with new construction has been negligible.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Rubber Control

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply whether Mr. A. Healey, a director of the Dunlop Rubber Company, Limited, who was recently appointed to the Rubber Control of the Ministry as an adviser on the use of synthetic rubber, is also the technical adviser to the Ministry in a much wider sphere; for what reasons two further men, formerly employed by Messrs. Dunlop, Dr. Davey and Mr. Perry, have been recently introduced into his Department; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the Dunlop Company from continuing to dominate the Rubber Control?

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Mr. Healey is the adviser on synthetic rubber usage in the Rubber Control, but as an officer of the Ministry

of Supply his assistance is available on other matters connected with the work of the Control in which he is expert. Dr. Davey has been appointed to act as Mr. Healey's deputy. He is a chemist who has specialised in problems connected with rubber usage. Mr. Perry, who has technical qualifications in tyre production, has been in the service of the Ministry for nearly two years. There is no justification for the suggestion in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Parker: In view of the fact that Dunlop's control only 50 per cent. of the industry in normal times, is it not desirable to let other sections of the industry be represented if we are to get the collaboration of the whole industry in the war effort?

Sir A. Duncan: In the interests of the war effort, the aim is to get the best qualified persons into all jobs, and if there are equally qualified persons in other concerns they are fully employed.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Are these people engaged upon terms which will enable them to return to Dunlop's when the war is over?

Sir A. Duncan: It depends on the end of the war.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is it not undesirable that people should be taken exclusively from one big concern of this kind for such appointments?

Sir A. Duncan: So far as the Rubber Control is concerned, they are not taken at all exclusively from one big concern.

Mr. Edwards: The principal men are.

Sir A. Duncan: No.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply why rubber companies, wishing to manufacture such articles as window strip for essential purposes, are prevented from producing this material by the Rubber Control refusing permission for them to use reclaimed rubber; and why the issuing officer of the Rubber Control, who was formerly employed by Messrs. Dunlop, has permitted the Dunlop Rubber Company, Limited, to use reclaimed rubber in the manufacture of this material, which has been marketed under the trade name of Everseal?

Sir A. Duncan: I regret that through a misunderstanding some manufacturers


were informed that automobile rubber weather stripping must be replaced by a non-rubber substitute, but this has now been put right. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this matter.

Paper Economy

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that paper, in the form of envelopes, forms and printed matter, is still being wasted; and will he take steps, by broadcast or other means, to remind the public of the urgent necessity of avoiding waste?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir; and I am glad to take this opportunity of again impressing, the need for the utmost economy.

Sir W. Smithers: If, in the opinion of the Government, economy in the use of paper is vital, will my right hon. Friend take steps to remind the public, and will he see that economy starts in Government Departments, where the wastage is still very bad?

Sir A. Duncan: The answer is, "Yes, Sir," to both parts of that Question.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister take note of the amount of paper that was wasted by opposition to the Catering Bill?

Salvage and Recovery Department (Staff)

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Supply the number of the total staff employed by the Salvage and Recovery Department; and how many appointments have been made during the past 12 months?

Sir A. Duncan: The number on the staff is now 124. In addition, there are 107 honorary district advisers, who give part-time service. During the past 12 months the staff has increased by 67.

Sponges (Pottery Industry)

Mr. Arthur Hollins: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will consider the release of fine-faced sponges, which the importers have in stock but which are being held for Service use; and whether he is aware that these sponges are essential in the clay processes of the manufacture of pottery and are at present difficult to obtain, and that the growing scarcity of this quality of sponge hampers the

supply of crockery urgently required for His Majesty's Forces, hospitals, and the community?

Sir A. Duncan: I am informed that the pottery industry requires fine-faced sponges of a lower grade than those reserved for the Services. Considerable quantities of suitable sponges have recently been supplied to the industry, but, in view of the shortage, the British Pottery Research Association have been asked to examine the possibility of utilising substitutes.

Mr. Hollins: Do not the pottery workers need the finest sponges? Why does the Minister say that they require a lower grade of sponges?

Sir A. Duncan: We are in touch with the British Pottery Research Association on this subject.

Harris Tweeds (Spun Wool)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the inadequate spinning capacity for wool for Harris tweed in the Outer Hebrides, and of the delays, of several months in many cases, before crofters get the wool back, spun, from the spinning mills, involving loss of time, money, and markets to the crofters; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the position?

Sir A. Duncan: I am not aware of the delays referred to, but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars, I will be glad to have inquiry made.

Tanks

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply what tank in production in this country is equal to the German Tiger, which weighs 62 tons and mounts an 88-mm. gun with an effective range of 4,500 yards?

Sir A. Duncan: It is clearly not in the public interest to give information of the nature asked for.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister really mean that it would be most awkward for the Government if they had to tell the truth about it? Does his answer not show that it is essential that we should have an early Debate on tanks?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. That is not my meaning. My meaning is that it would be disadvantageous to the public interest to give the information.

Mr. Shinwell: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman on the need for concealing details, and for not furnishing information to the enemy, might I ask whether he could say categorically that we are now producing a tank equal to the best that the enemy has got? [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not answer."] I am not asking for details. Are we to understand from the silence that that is not the case?

Mr. Thorne: Are not our tanks knocking the Germans to pieces in Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Pigs (Weight)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food upon what authority or statistics is the statement by the Ministry of Food based which gives as a fact that, while 27 per cent. loss between live and dead weight is reasonable for bacon pigs, 22 per cent. is very exceptional for pigs killed at a slaughter-house?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): The figures to which my hon. Friend refers, and which were included in a letter I recently sent to him, were given with the authority of my Noble Friend, and were based on information and statistics provided by my Department.

Sir W. Smithers: Why then did the hon. Member refuse to give authentic figures of live and dead weight for pigs sent to the bacon curers and those killed at the slaughter houses, and how does he justify the difference?

Mr. Mabane: That is quite a different question.

Fish Friers

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what part of their requirements the fish friers are now receiving; and whether he can make a statement on the whole question of this particular form of popular distribution?

Mr. Mabane: While it is not possible accurately to estimate current requirements of fish friers if fish supplies were unlimited, my Noble Friend is satisfied that, in the prevailing conditions of seasonal shortage, fish friers are in general

receiving their correct share of the total supplies available. My Noble Friend fully appreciates the value of this particular channel of distribution and is giving it his closest attention.

Milk Pasteurisation

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, as the death rate per 1,000, excluding county boroughs, due to non-pulmonary tuberculosis, showed a decrease in 1941, as compared to 1938, of 29 per cent. in the county of Huntingdon, of 30 per cent. in Dorset and remained stationary in Somerset in spite of an additional child population of nearly 60,000 in 1941 in these three counties, what percentage of milk sold for domestic purposes in these counties is pasteurised?

Mr. Mabane: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the percentage of milk pasteurised in these areas is practically nil?

Dr. Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, as the death-rate per 1,000 due to non-pulmonary tuberculosis showed an increase in 1941 as compared to 1938 of 85 per cent. in Liverpool, of 37½ per cent. in Glasgow and of 36 per cent. in Manchester in spite of a reduction in child population in 1939 of at least 170,000 in these three cities, what percentage of milk sold for domestic purposes in these three cities is pasteurised?

Mr. Mabane: Approximately 76 per cent. of the milk sold in Liverpool for domestic purposes is pasteurised and approximately 80 per cent. in Glasgow and Manchester.

Licensed Retailers, Stradbroke

Mr. Granville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the number of food distributing businesses in Stradbroke, Suffolk, sanctioned by his Department, and the number of male assistants employed in each, together with the number of registered customers supplied, at the latest available date?

Mr. Mabane: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Granville: Does that include the premises of Ward Brothers in Stradbroke, and, in view of the fact that the local Food Office has made representation to the Man-power Board of his Department, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision of his Department?

Mr. Mabane: If as I believe this particular shop is in Stradbroke, then these

There are five licensed food retailers in Stradbroke, Suffolk—three grocers and two butchers. On the 5th February, 1943, the number of male assistants employed in these businesses and the number of registered customers supplied by each were as follow:—


Grocers.
Number of Male Assistants employed.
Number of Registered Customers for—


Bacon.
Fats.
Sugar.
Cheese.
Eggs.


A
1
439
450
447
439
199


B
5 (including 1 part time and 1 boy)
1,170
1,117
1,216
1,195
533


C
1 (boy)
408
417
386
394
204

Baking Trade (Man-Power)

Mr. Banfield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, apart from the transfer of men in urgent cases, any steps are being taken to ensure sufficient man-power to enable the baking trade to carry on; and whether employers' and workmen's representatives are being consulted?

Mr. Mabane: Under the new arrangements referred to in answer to recent Questions by my hon. Friend on this subject, the Divisional Food Officer will keep himself fully informed of the number of vacancies for bread bakers in his Division and will give every possible assistance to local officers of the Ministry of Labour and National Service in arranging for those vacancies to be filled. Where necessary, employers' and workmen's representatives have been and are being consulted. In addition, no application for deferment on behalf of a baker will be

figures will include that shop. The other question is a different matter.

Mr. Granville: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, when the Food Office recommended this case his own Department turned it down, and will he look into the matter?

Mr. Mabane: That is a different question.

Following is the statement:

refused except by agreement with the Divisional Food Officer. There should, therefore, be no danger of the man-power in the baking trade being reduced below what is necessary to maintain the bread supply.

Mr. E. Walkden: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why, when he has given an assurance that the interests of the men who bake the bread will be the subject of consultation between the workers' representatives, the Ministry of Labour and his own Department, those who distribute the bread are not subject to the same consultation?

Mr. Mabane: Because there are quite different considerations involved from those of the bakers.

Mr. Walkden: But are these not equally important?

Mr. Mabane: Quite.

Soft Drinks Industry (Concentration)

Major Procter: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the scheme for the concentration of the soft drinks industry will transfer all the assets of some 1,400 manufacturers to a new company with dictatorial powers; that the directors, exclusively, represent the largest manufacturers; that the Articles of Association do not provide for the usual election or replacement of directors, by the members in general meeting; whether the directors are enabled to amend the scheme in any respects without the sanction of members of the company; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the Articles of Association conform to established company practice and to the Companies Act, 1929?

Mr. Mabane: I cannot agree that the effect of the scheme to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers will be to transfer assets as he suggests. The directors of the Soft Drinks Industry (War-time) Association, Limited, were selected on grounds of competence and not as representing particular manufacturers. The Articles of Association provide that the existing committee shall submit to the Minister before 28th February a scheme for the reconstitution of the committee as from 1st June, so as to make it include representatives of the various classes of manufacturers engaged in the industry. This scheme is to be submitted to an extraordinary general meeting of the members of the association. Variations in the scheme cannot be made without the prior approval of the Minister and the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The association was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1929, on 7th August, and I know of no reason to suppose that the Articles of Association are not in conformity with that Act.

Major Procter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme and these Articles of Association are the worst examples in our legislation of syndicalism and National Socialism, which even Mussolini could not equal?

Mr. Mabane: I cannot agree with that. I observe that a recent issue of the "Mineral Water Trade Journal" states that their conclusion quite definitely is that the trade as a whole accepts the

inherent justice of the scheme and is not ungrateful for the trouble taken on its behalf.

Major Procter: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCHILL TANKS, NORTH AFRICA

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the A22 tanks went into action and were actually engaged with the enemy in the recent battles in Tunisia?

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Boulton): I have been asked to reply. It is not in the public interest to publish information about the employment of equipment in operations which are still in progress, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give my hon. Friend the information he asks for.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has observed the speech made by the Minister of Production, to whom I addressed this Question, who stated that these tanks had been in action and had given satisfaction; and is he aware that it has not been made clear whether they were only perambulated behind the lines or had been engaged with the enemy?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is it not in the public interest not to answer questions put by the hon. Member opposite?

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the fact that these tanks bear the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and it seems to be the policy now to let the public know of the exploits of our troops in action, would it not be desirable to let us have a little more information about these tanks, which hitherto have not been too successful?

The Prime Minister: I gave a somewhat long reply on this subject before I went away. A few sample tanks of this mark were used in the battle of El Alamein, and it was reported that they did well.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING WAGES BILL

Sir Douglas Hacking: In view of the proof provided by the House yesterday that the introduction without previous inquiry of the Catering Wages Bill is in


fact controversial, may I ask the Leader of the House what action the Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr. Eden: I, of course, agree that the division showed quite clearly that there is a measure of difference between us, but I am not without hope that, as we proceed with the Committee stage, we shall be able to iron out some of these differences. At any rate, I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is the intention of the Government to give full and fair opportunity for discussion on the Committee stage in order that all points of view may be ventilated and, I hope, progress towards agreement reached.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that there would have been the greatest possible differences on the question of the Essential Work Order if the workers and the Labour Party had organised themselves in the way that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends organised themselves against this Bill?

Major Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the doctrine promulgated yesterday, that the sole interpreters of the validity of a Government pledge are the Government themselves, is a very dangerous one, and will he reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The main object of this Bill is to expedite certain of the work of the War Damage Commission and so to accelerate the classification of properties that have

been damaged and the necessary plans for rebuilding and for redevelopment after the war. We are now able to take the course set out in the Bill mainly owing to the satisfactory progress that the Commission has been able to make with its work. When the Commission was first appointed it took over from the Inland Revenue Valuation Department over 1,000,000 claims which had already been lodged in respect of war damage that had occurred before the War Damage Act, 1941, was passed. The great bulk of these claims were in respect of partial damage which in many cases had already been repaired. The Commission was thus faced with ft heavy load of arrears of claims due for immediate payment. Further claims continued to come in, and are still coming in, but towards the end of last year the Commission found that they had, broadly speaking, wiped off their arrears. The War Damage Act, however, requires the Commission to apply to every damaged property a statutory test to determine whether the property is a total loss and, therefore, normally the subject of a value payment or whether it is not a total loss and, therefore, normally the subject of a cost of works payment. In other words, the test is designed to determine whether the property is economically worth restoring or hot, and this is the second stage of the Commission's work.
The third stage will, of course, be the making of payments in respect of repairs and rebuilding after the war when civilian building is again possible. It is clearly desirable that if possible the Commission should complete the classification, at least of all properties damaged to date, before the end of the war. The sooner this is done the easier it will be for owners and others to know how they stand and to make their plans for rebuilding or redevelopment. If that is not done, it may hold up post-war reconstruction. If the Commission can now set themselves to work on the classification, they will be ready when the third stage arrives to deal with current classification and current claims, and the provisions in the Bill for which I am now asking the Second Reading will make it possible for the Commission to do this classification now.
Section 4 (1) of the original Act requires the Commission to decide whether the case is a total loss by reference to levels of cost and value at some future


indefinite time. The Commission thus has to consider not only when the work of restoration would be likely to take place but also what is likely to be the level of prices and the values at that indefinite time. It is obvious how difficult it is to draw conclusions as to post-war levels of value from present estimates, and this makes it practically impossible for the Commission to get on satisfactorily with this second stage of their work. The Bill, in Clause 1 and the Schedule, amends Section 4 (1) so as to make the test one upon pre-war levels of costs and values. It is not suggested that the solution is entirely scientific or that an entirely scientific solution can be found, but I would suggest to the House that it is a solution which should serve well as a working basis. There is probably no particular ground for thinking that the houses or other buildings which were economically worth restoring before the war would not be thought worth restoring after the war or vice versa, and the general effect of the proposed solution will be to expand the field within which costs of works payments can be made, which, as many hon. Members will remember, was strongly urged on all hands when we last debated this matter. Broadly, it should result in the rebuilding of any good building which was damaged, and the change will enable the Commission's work to be done now and will introduce a large measure of certainty in place of hypothesis. Thus I hope it will lessen the scope of disputes and differences.
It is, course, necessary in applying the test of the 1939 levels and values and prices to ensure that this does not result in a cost of works payment owing to a change of circumstances between pre-war and post-war in cases in which rebuilding ought not to take place. This can be secured, for the Treasury has power to issue directions under Section 7 in regard to the public interest which could be utilised so as to enable the Commission to make a value payment in cases where post-war conditions make restoration improper, notwithstanding that the test gave a cost of works payment. I may say, for the information of the House, that there has already been evidence that owners of property are likely to ask for a value payment, which they can do under the provisions of the Act, in lieu of a cost of works payment, where a

restored building is likely to be what is called a white elephant.
I need not say much about Clause 2. The House will remember that at a late stage in consideration of the amending Bill last year certain lengthy and complicated provisions relating to rent charges were introduced. Further consideration has disclosed one error and one or two omissions, and it is necessary to put these right before the Acts, are consolidated, so we are taking this opportunity to-day to do that. The purport of the small technical Amendments involved is explained in the Memorandum to the Bill, which no doubt has been noted and observed by hon. Members. I commend the Bill to the House; I think it will help us with our reconstruction plans, and I hope it will meet with general approval.

Sir Charles Edwards: I am very glad that this Bill has been introduced, because there is great need of improvement in regard to some of the questions connected with war damage payments. I have been dealing with a case which occurred in my own constituency, where a bomb fell about two years ago and totally destroyed or damaged no fewer than 100 houses. No repairs were put in hand, although many of the houses were not so badly damaged that they could not have been made habitable. Later people began to take up the question and got in touch with the war damage authorities in Cardiff. There was much letter writing, following which the people concerned were asked to get a contractor's estimate for the repair of six houses. A contractor in Newport gave a price, and after further letter writing he was told" to commence work. He did so until the amount due to him had risen to £900. From that point he was not able to go further, because there was no sign of payment, owing to a dispute having arisen as to whether it was to be a cost of works payment or a value payment for the work.
While that dispute was in progress the man who was doing the work had gone a certain distance with his repairs, but as I say he reached a point at which he could not carry on any further. That is about two months or more ago. These houses have been left in that half-repaired state since, and I suppose that to-day, owing to the wind and rain, they


are almost back to the state in which they were at the beginning. I got in touch with Cardiff about the matter and had a very nice letter, saying that they would write to me again and that sort of thing. Later, they wrote to say that they had nothing more to do with the matter and that the letters had been referred to London and were now in the hands of a committee which was dealing with this problem. I then wrote to the chairman of that committee. I received an acknowledgment and was told that a further letter would follow, but no letter has followed, and these houses are still in a half-repaired state.
I do not quite know what this value payment means. I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when the value payment is to apply, it relates to the value of the house before the damage took place. If that be so I think it may be satisfactory, but that has not been so in this case of Rogerstone in Monmouthshire. The houses were in a repairable condition, and the people wanted a cost payment for the work done. They thought that if it was a value payment, it would be the value after these repairs had been done—which would have been very different from the value before the damage took place. I wonder, then, if it is clear that from now onwards the value payment is to be related to the value before the damage took place. If so, that payment I think, would be satisfactory. If not, it will not be satisfactory, and nothing less than the cost of the job will be satisfactory. This trouble has been going on for a long time, and it is a very serious matter in Rogerstone. It will be seen how important it would be if even six houses were to be put into a proper state of repair. I hope that whoever is in charge of this Debate will take note of what I have said and get this matter cleared up. I hope this Measure will make it possible to deal with cases of that kind, which are very serious for the people concerned and very expensive to the country, especially when houses are left in a half-repaired condition for months and work upon them has to be started all over again. I commend these facts to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Butcher: I think the House generally is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the

introduction of this Bill, which is the second Measure we have had in amendment of the original War Damage Act. My right hon. Friend in introducing the first Measure, said that in regard to this question of war damage, he would be able to apply only some form of rough judgment, but I believe that the amending Act of last year, with this Bill, will go some way to refine and improve the original Measure. I believe too that this very painful and difficult question of war damage has been handled, on the whole, extraordinarily well by the War Damage Commission, and if it is not out of place to do so, I should like to pay a tribute to their work generally. Many problems, such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) has alluded are due to the difficulty of interpreting the original Act and the amending Act; and I believe that the Minister who replies to-day will be able to give us some assurance that this Bill deals, in some way, with those difficulties.
Having said those kind things, I have to return to certain observations which I ventured to make on the Measure of last year. I regret very much that no steps are being taken at this late date to meet the position of those who are paying interest on property which, as a result of enemy action, they are no longer able to enjoy. Under the original Act the interest payable by His Majesty's Government is 2½ per cent., payable after the war, but the continuing burden upon owners of property at the present time is at the aggregate rate of interest payable from income, arising not only out of the property damaged but out of the whole of their resources. I am not going to dwell upon the point now. I know very well that it was a matter of debate, and if it is a suitable subject for an Amendment at a later stage of the proceedings on this Bill, then I and my hon. Friends will ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move such an Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I have considerable sympathy with the points just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher). I do not know whether this is a suitable occasion on which to try to persuade the Government to change their mind on something which we debated extensively on the previous amending Measure, but


as, apparently, the Government have indicated their intention of bringing in amending Bills from time to time, to improve the original Act, I would urge upon them the necessity of considering this question once again. This Bill deals only in a limited way with the original Act. All it does, as I understand it, is to enable the War Damage Commission to decide now whether a cost of works payment or a value payment is to be made in respect of a damaged house. In so far as the War Damage Commission can indicate to the owner, or the different owners concerned in a property, from the freeholder to the mortgagee perhaps, that a payment will be made on a certain basis after the war, either a cost of works payment or a value payment, then I think it is all to the good that owners of damaged property should know exactly where they stand.
I would, however, like to ask a question. It is clear that if the Commission decide that a cost of works payment is to be made, then there is no doubt about it. The payment will be made on the cost of the works and will be made to the person carrying out those works. But where it is a value payment, am I to understand that the Commission will indicate not only the nature of the payment, but also the amount of the payment to be made after the war? In other words, will the Commission say to the owner, "We are going to make you a value payment at the end of the war, and we are going to pay you X," naming the sum? I ask that question because many owners have mortgages in respect of damaged properties, and many are continuing to pay interest on these mortgage loans. Many others are not paying the interest, but the interest is accumulating, and so is the debt. Therefore, both sides, the mortgagee and the mortgagor, would desire to know what is to be the amount of the value payment, if the Commission decide that that is a suitable form of payment for the particular property concerned.
There is another matter that occurs to me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will know that under one of the previous Acts—I think it is the Landlord and Tenant Act—the owner of a leasehold property damaged as a result of enemy action can serve a conditional retention notice on his ground landlord that the

premises are unfit, and, thereupon, if they are unfit, the ground rent ceases. As soon as the War Damage Commsision decide on a cost of works payment, I think—and in saying this I speak subject to correction by the Attorney-General—that the owner will have to decide whether he is going to retain the lease, and, if he does, he will have to pay the ground rent. If I am right in that assumption, it will be very unfair if the owner in such a case is compelled to pay the ground rent and yet, because of a Regulation made by the Ministry of Works, is not allowed to carry out repairs to the property if they exceed £100, without, of course, first getting a licence, and if they are extensive repairs, probably he will not get a licence. Therefore, he will be in the position of not being able to carry out repairs to the property but may be called upon by the ground landlord to pay ground rent. I am not sure that I have got the facts correct in every detail, but I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand the point I am making. I should like to have an assurance that the result of this Bill, which will enable the War Damage Commission to decide whether there is to be a cost of works payment, or a value payment, will not be to put the owner of a leasehold property in a worse condition, so far as ground rent is concerned, than he is in at the present time without this amending Bill. Those are the only points I wanted to mention. I am entirely in agreement with the purpose of the Bill, which I think will facilitate many transactions that are held in abeyance at the present time because the owners do not know whether they will get a cost of works payment or a value payment at some indefinite and indeterminate time, probably many years hence.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am a little apologetic about the question I am about to ask, because I am a little afraid that perhaps I ought to have been able to find out the answer from the Bill, but I am not quite sure of it, and I think the question just asked by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) really makes my question proper as a supplementary to it. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury this: If I understood the hon. Member for Bassetlaw rightly, his first question was: Under this Bill, is the effect going to be


that the question will be decided on a new principle whether a payment shall be a rebuilding payment or a value payment; is that going to be the end of it, or is there also to he at the same time a decision now on what the value payment shall be? The supplementary question I would like to put is this: If the answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question is "Yes," then will the effect of this Bill be that the maximum value payment will be the number of pounds sterling which the building would have been worth upon the fixed date, that is, March, 1939?

Mr. Douglas: This Bill is of a highly technical character, and it purports at any rate to make a substantial alteration in the position of people who are making claims in respect of war damage. I do not want to deal with Clause 2, which merely repairs some omissions in the amending Act, but Clause 1 does appear to make a quite appreciable difference to the existing procedure. If I understand the effect correctly, to decide whether a value payment or a cost of works payment is to be made, three different values or prices have to be ascertained: first, what the hereditament is worth in its damaged condition; secondly, what it will cost to reinstate it as it was before the damage; and, thirdly, what will be its value after it has been reinstated. If the difference between the value as reinstated and the value as damaged is greater than the cost of the works that are necessary to reinstate it, a cost of works payment will be made. As I understand it, the Bill proposes to make that estimate as at the values in March, 1939, instead of referring to some future date. That is certainly an improvement in that it gives a defined criterion instead of a very indefinite one, because views as to what values may be in the future obviously can differ to a very considerable extent.
In the Memorandum to the Bill it is stated—and I understood the Chancellor to repeat that statement—that the result of this provision will be that a larger number of cost of works payments will be made and, therefore, that there may be a larger charge upon the Exchequer. I should be very much obliged if somebody would explain that a little more fully, because the Chancellor, in the course of his speech, said that it would

make no difference to the position of the claimant whether one looks to 1939 or to the future, but that his position will be the same. If that is so, it is difficult to see what is the effect of this alteration and why it should increase the number of cost of works payments. The only explanation which occurs to me—I do not pretend to be a valuer—is that if one repairs a building, one can say that it has a certain definite value when it is repaired. The problem of what its value is in its damaged condition is much more subtle. Surely, the means of determining what the value is in the damaged conditions is by deducting from the value as repaired the amount it will cost to repair the building, and if that is so, the difference between the repair value and the damage value will always be equal to the costs of the works which are necessary to repair it, except in the case where the cost of the works exceeds the full structural value, that is to say, where the difference between the repair value and the site value is greater than the cost of the works. If that is the case, then it is only in that event that the value payment will arise; but it is very far from clear from the wording of the provision whether that is to be its effect or not.
Another point to which I wish to draw attention is that the Bill continues the distinction which is in the principal Act between what is called a developed hereditament and other hereditaments. The term "developed hereditament" has not got its natural meaning; it has a highly artificial meaning. It relates to a case where the amount of land which is used in connection with the structure is comparatively small as compared with those cases in which a very large amount of land is used with the structure. I take as typical examples the case of an ordinary dwelling house with a small garden, which would be treated as a developed hereditament, and farm buildings, which apparently are not treated as developed hereditaments, and there is a very considerable difference between the treatment of these two classes of property in respect of the amount of compensation that may be claimed. In the case of the developed hereditament it is very much larger than in the other case, though in point of economic effect both are fully developed according to the kind of use for which the land is suitable. That is an anomaly which still calls for remedy and which has not yet been dealt with.
Clause 1 (2) merely gives the War Damage Commission discretion to review their determination in the light of the Amendment that is made by the Bill. It ought to be made obligatory upon them to treat every case upon precisely the same basis whether they have come to a determination about it before the Amendment is passed or not, otherwise it is highly unfair that some people, by the mere accident that they have had their cases determined by the Commission, shall be treated in one fashion whereas others will be treated in a totally different fashion because the Commission considers their cases after the Bill becomes an Act. There is no obligation upon the Commission to deal with that. It is left entirely within their discretion whether they shall or shall not do it. Everyone should be treated on precisely the same basis and it should be obligatory on the Commission to deal with them according to the law as it will be after the Bill is passed.

Captain Gammans: I do not wish to oppose the Bill. I hope it is only the first of other amending Bills which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lay before the House. As it is, I am rather puzzled to know why this particular side of War Damage is brought before the House at all. This legislation differentiates against property owners more than any other section of the population. They are not merely paying the ordinary taxes but they are paying this special tax as well. Although the first Act was definitely a shot in the dark, there was underlying it a definite promise and a definite principle, and that was that the loss should not rest where it fell. But the loss does lie where it fell and the whole of the damage which has been done to date, and as far as we can see is likely to be done, unless the war takes a most unfavourable turn, will be paid entirely by the house owning community. It seems to me that the time has come when the Chancellor might show that he proposes to implement the promise that this loss should be shared by the community as a whole. May we have an assurance that these contributions year by year, at the rate of £40,000,000, will not continue to be levied against property owners? By 1st July next they will have paid no less than £120,000,000, and that is a terrible handicap to them when it is very difficult indeed to make property profitable. I hope that this is only the first of a series of amending Bills.

Mr. Ridley: I confess to considerable inexperience in this matter, and, if I did not make that confession, my inexperience would probably reveal itself in what I am about to say. There are three main inequities, one of which is confirmed by the Bill and the other two are left entirely untouched. I cannot believe that we are anywhere within the region of equity in saying to a man whose house was completely destroyed in 1940, that we will in 1948 or some other date make him a payment based on the value of the property at about the date when it was destroyed, regardless of what kind of property the payment will enable him to secure in replacement of the property destroyed. The owner of a house worth £800 or £850 in normal times may discover that, owing to changing prices, £850 will not enable him to replace the property destroyed but only to buy something very inferior in material, in size, in aspect and in every other sense. We only touch equity when we make that man, who has no margin, a payment, on whatever date it is made, which will enable him to replace the property destroyed. To enshrine in the Bill a date in March, 1939, is to confirm an inequity and not to remove it.
Two other matters which have been referred to are the relations between the ground landlord and the tenant whose property has been destroyed and between the mortgagee and the owner-borrower. Neither of these disabilities is dealt with in the Bill at all. No one will deny that there is a feeling that the mortgagee of damaged property has been placed in a preferential position. I see no reason at all why the lender of the money should not wait till the date on which the tenant landlord will also have to wait for a damage payment. The indeterminate position which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) described of the tenant and the ground landlord also needs very much more careful consideration than has been given to it. I have had brought to my notice many cases of what seems to me serious injustice. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the suggestion that the value payment should be made at a date which may have no relation at all to the cost of replacement, and to consider also the desirability of responding to the widespread desire to reconsider the relationship between the tenant landlord and the mortgagee on the


one hand and the tenant landlord and the ground landlord on the other.

Mr. Jewson: This is a matter about which the district from which I come has been naturally greatly exercised, and I can give a welcome to this Bill, as far as it goes, although I regret it does not go somewhat further. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I feel that I may be asking about a matter which I ought to be able to work out myself, but it is not always easy to understand the phraseology of Bills. My Chamber of Commerce has been greatly exercised on the question of the difference between the value payment and the cost of works payment. It has been thought that a man who gets a cost of works payment will be a great deal better off under the original Act than the man who gets a value payment. It has been represented to me that in certain circumstances a value payment might be actually less than a cost of works payment. Therefore, accepting the statement made that the new basis is expected to result in a larger number of cost of works payments, I welcome the Bill. I should like to have a little more light on the comparative figures of cost of works and value payments as they will be after this amending Bill has gone through. I should like to underline what was said by the hon. Member for Holland and Boston (Mr. Butcher) about the position of mortgagees. That is a matter which requires attention. It is not in this Bill and I do not know whether it can be added to it as it goes through. I hope, however, that it will receive attention in the near future. I am not quite happy on the question of the contribution. It seems to me that the basis on which the contribution is paid ought to be the Schedule A assessment at the time it is levied. It is now the Schedule A assessment as it was in 1939, which in quite a number of cases may be an unfair basis as time goes on. I shall be glad to know whether that point also can have consideration.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I would like to ask whether agricultural farm buildings are included in undeveloped hereditaments and whether this Bill assumes that the estimates of the repairs of agricultural buildings will be the cost of what those repairs would have been

in 1939. These buildings are often made of wood, and the cost of repairs is much higher now than in 1939.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) advanced a point which has been discussed on several occasions as to the unfairness of giving a value payment to the owner of a house which has been totally destroyed basing that value on the value of the property in March, 1939, because in the interim the purchasing power of money may have decreased to such an extent that it is impossible for the owner to build anything approaching the property he formerly held with the money he will receive. His suggestion practically comes to this, that a value payment should be the value of the property in March, 1939, plus a sum to make good the difference in the purchasing power of money at that date and at the date when payment is made. I must confess to having considerable sympathy for views of that kind, but at the same time I am not at all sure that the suggestion is possible. I wish the Attorney-General could make a statement as to whether something of that kind would be advisable. I admit the difficulties, because the increase in the cost of building or replacement may be totally different from the decrease in the purchasing power of money in other respects. In these circumstances only a purely arbitrary sum could be suggested to make good the difference between the value of the property in 1939 and the value at the time when the reconstruction or repair was carried out. I should like to know whether something of that kind is possible because it would go a long way towards meeting the grievance which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Clay Cross.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I should like to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Jewson) in regard to the basis of payment under the War Damage Act. I regret that the Chancellor has not tackled this matter before. The present basis is very unfair to many property owners who have to bear a great burden. Not only are they taxed 10s. on Schedule A, but they have to pay the war damage contribution. They are taxed for the contribution on the 1939 Schedule A assessment, which in many cases is much higher than


the present assessment. This is particularly true of the owner-occupier. I know several cases in my constituency of houses which were let at a fair rental in 1939. The leases have fallen in for various reasons and the owner-occupiers have taken possession. They have now lower Schedule A assessments, but they have to pay the contributions on the higher assessments of 1939. In other words, they have to pay on the rents they were receiving then. I know of a house which was let at £120 a year in 1939. The lease came to an end and the owner went back to live in the house. The assessment was reduced by the local authority to £80 and the Income Tax authority accepted that as Schedule A assessment. The owner, however, has to pay 2s. on the £120 and not on the £80. That is grossly unfair and it is time the Chancellor took the matter in hand. It is highly regrettable that he has not seen fit to deal with the matter in this Bill. It may be said that it is not an appropriate thing to put in this Bill, but he should have brought in a comprehensive amending Measure which would have treated property owners in as fair and just a fashion as possible.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The Second Reading of this Bill has been the occasion for a number of points being raised which we discussed before and with which I was very familiar at the time of the first Bill and the amending Bill. I am not sure that I carry the details of every point in my head, but I will do my best to deal with them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) raised a special case. It is always difficult to deal with a special case without knowing the circumstances. He suggested that there had been some delay. That, of course, is always unfortunate, but tributes have been paid to-day and on previous occasions to the expedition and efficiency with which the War Damage Commission have endeavoured to deal with the multitudinous cases which they have had. I do not want to say anything about the particular case without knowing all the facts. It is one of the general provisions of the Act that, so far as temporary repairs to prevent further damage are concerned, they should be done promptly. In many cases they have been done by local authorities,

and they should be paid for irrespective of what the ultimate decision about the property may be.

Sir C. Edwards: I merely asked the Attorney-General to look into it.

The Attorney-General: I am not complaining at my right hon. Friend raising it, and I will certainly look into it. In so far as some of the difficulties in that case may have arisen from the difficulty of determining whether there should be a value payment or a cost of works payment, this Bill is designed to prevent it occurring to the same extent in future. It enables a decision as to which pigeonhole a property falls into to be decided in the light of pre-war values and estimates which can be made to-day. One or two of my hon. Friends asked for such guidance as I can give on the fundamental point as to the difference between these two categories of payment. I will do that as shortly as I can and explain how this Bill fits into that scheme. If a man gets a cost of works payment—and I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) realises this—he gets the cost of the works when they are carried out. He is not adversely affected by any increase in the cost of building. The value payment in the Bill as originally introduced and as it is at present is based on pre-war values. The point was raised in the earlier discussions and was raised to-day whether that might have to be looked at again if values have gone up very much when the war is over. My right hon. Friend has always said that we may have to look at it again, but that it is the only practical basis at present.
I think this Bill goes a long way to meet the case which was put on previous occasions for the inadequacy of the value payments. My right hon. Friend and the notice on the outside of the Bill draw attention to the fact that this Measure will extend the scope and number of cost of works payments. Some hon. Gentlemen asked why that was so. The reason is, I think, that values do not necessarily go up in proportion to the cost of building and of repairs. Therefore, applying as you have to, apart from this Bill, the post-war cost of repairs and the post-war values in order to decide whether there is a total loss you would, I think, find more


cases of total loss than if you applied the pre-war standard. Applying this standard, it comes to this, that if a house was worth reinstating before the war a cost of works payment will apply. As my right hon. Friend said, it will broadly result in the rebuilding of any building which was before the war a good building. If it was a type of house which no one would take unless there was a tremendous housing shortage and which no one would have put up again before the war, the owner would get a value payment representing its pre-war standard.
But if you could say before the war, "This house was worth putting up"—it may not always be totally damaged but have been substantially damaged—you will get a cost of works payment, and you will get the advantage that the repairs will be paid for and the owner will be getting a substantially new house, whereas the house before the war may have been of a certain age. That is broadly what this Bill is designed to effect. It does extend the scope and it will enable those determinations to be made now.

Mr. Bellenger: Then we may assume that the hypothetical cost of repairs as at March, 1939, will be the factor used by the War Damage Commission?

The Attorney-General: Yes, obviously it would be wrong to apply the 1943 or 1944 or 1945 cost of repairs if you were only going to look at the 1939 value. Suppose the valuer looked at this in 1939; would he then have said to the owner that it was a reasonable proposition to rebuild it?

Mr. Pickthorn: Repair or rebuild?

The Attorney-General: Repair or rebuild. Then I was asked whether the War Damage Commission, when they had done this calculation, would inform the owner, assuming it becomes a value payment, of the amount, and I understand it is their intention to do that. Next I was asked about the contributions. It was said that if we got no more damage it might be that the damage would be covered more or less by the contributions with little if any contribution from the Exchequer. But I think we should be giving hostages to fortune if we made some declaration now on the basis that we should suffer no more substantial damage. It is a point which

must be raised with my right hon. Friend when we are through the wood and see what the whole picture is.
Some reference was made to the Schedule A basis. That has been fully discussed before and I do not want to go into long arguments which are really outside the scope of this Bill, but I will put this point. I think all would have insured against war risks with an ordinary company if they could have done it. Everyone would have taken out an insurance before the war, or on the outbreak of war, and the value he would have put on the premises would have been the pre-war value, and it might be quite wrong—nothing in this thing is completely logical—to let a man's contribution, because you have spread it in instalments, go down because, perhaps quite temporarily for the war period, the premises are in an area where there is more risk of damage.

Dr. Russell Thomas: So you admit then that the war damage contribution is a capital charge on property?

The Attorney-General: It would be wrong to say that because the annual value has gone down, because the rent is less, the contribution should be less, because as soon as the war is over the house may be in what becomes a popular part of the country, say on the south coast. It it is damaged the man will get the cost of works payment, and why should his contribution be lower than that of his neighbours because during the war his property was a less remunerative proposition? But that is a matter which has been discussed a good deal on previous occasions.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster asked about agricultural buildings. The position, I understand, is that farmhouses and the most substantial buildings, or the buildings directly connected with the farm, are treated as developed land and will come under the principles of the Bill, but outlying buildings may not be so treated. If he wants further detailed enlightenment as to where the line is drawn, perhaps he will let me know. I think I have dealt with the question of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) about value payments. It is the intention that owners should be told that at present it is pre-war value. But supposing a determination is made that it is


a cost of works payment, will that remove the lessee's right to withhold his rent although it may not be possible to get the repairs done? The answer is, No. The right goes on until repairs can be done. My recollection is that there is some Regulation to deal with the case where a lessee might sit and do nothing although he could get a licence to do the repairs. The Commission have decided that a cost of works decision will not affect whatever rights he has under the Landlord and Tenant Damage Acts. I hope that I have now dealt with the points raised, and I am grateful for the welcome which has been given to this Bill, although recognising that some people would like to have seen a lot of other things in it.

Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman obtained any idea from the War Damage Commission of the length of time before the bulk of these claims are assessed either on a cost of works or value payment?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. I am afraid it will be a considerable time. There are a large number of cases, and each demands individual examination. No doubt a certain amount of work has been done already, but it will still be a considerable time.

Mr. Silverman: I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend has said nothing at all, and I think I understand why, about what was said during the Debate on the old vexed and controversial question of mortgagors and mortgagees. I do not invite him to reopen the discussion now, but I should like to know whether the Government still have it in mind, or whether we must assume that they have made up their mind on the matter and do not propose at any time to reopen it.

The Attorney-General: I did mean to make a reference to that. My right hon. Friend's opinion is the same as it was when the matter was last discussed.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. Adamson.]

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Sub-section (1) of Section four of the War Damage Act, 1941, and to make consequential amendments, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums authorised to be paid out of such moneys by Section fifty-four of the said Act of 1941 attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session requiring the question whether a payment in respect of any war damage (whether occurring before or after the passing of the said Act of the present Session) is to be a payment of cost of works or a value payment to be determined by reference to prices current at the 31st day of March, 1939."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Assheton.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House is very familiar with the subject of this Bill, which renews the Act introduced some two years ago the broad purpose of which was to enable Members to undertake work under the Crown connected with the war and during the war without being forced to resign their seats under the House of Commons Disqualification Act. The original Bill was referred to and was considered by the Committee which sat under the ex-Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. Certain recommendations were made, all of which were discussed and some of which were debated in the renewing Bill last year. I think the most important of the recommendations which were embodied in the Bill of last year was the limitation on the number of Members who could, on the certificate of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, take these appointments without incurring the penalties of the Disqualification Act. The limit was put at 25. The Government, of course, appreciate the anxiety of the House that excessive use should not be made of this power. The number when the last Bill was before


the House was 18 and the number to-day is the same. Three or four have dropped out for one reason or another, and three or four have come in, but on balance there is no increase in the number of those who are exempted by a certificate under the original Act. The Bill simply continues the, Act for another year. The various points that are raised under it were fully discussed on the two previous occasions, and I do not think the House would wish me to go into any detailed recapitulation of the arguments on one side or the other.

Mr. Bellenger: The situation is not quite the same as when the original Act was passed. We have gone farther into the war, and we still cannot see the end of it, which may be some time distant. If it is the intention of the Government to continue this Measure year by year, and, upon the certificate only of the Prime Minister, which may be given for a variety of reasons—into some of which it would be interesting to go, considering the record of the individual certificatees—to allow this to go on until the end of the war, the position will be somewhat serious for the constituencies represented by hon. Members who may now be thousands of miles away from this House and cannot attend to the needs of those constituents. There may be a very good reason why certain hon. Members should, in taking up appointments which they would ordinarily have been glad to accept and at the same time give up their seats in this House, continue to be nominal Members of this House while holding paid appointments overseas under the Grown. There are hon. Members who come under the Bill whom we see very seldom. Even if they return to this country, we hardly ever have the opportunity of finding out from them exactly what their duties consist of overseas and what they have been doing there. Whether it is possible for their constituents to interrogate them on various matter of interest to those constituents I do not know, but I am aware, and the House will be aware, that such Members might, to all intents and purposes; cease to be Members of this House, so far as their usefulness to this House and to their constituents is concerned.
I do not want to oppose the Bill, but I do ask the Government and the Prime Minister in particular earnestly to consider whether they ought to continue the grant-

ing of these certificates and to continue bringing their Bills before this House and in that way create a situation which might be undesirable if the war lasts much longer. If hon. Members are given permission to serve their country overseas, they ought, on accepting that position, give up their seats in this House. I believe it is difficult, even in the case of hon. Members serving in the Forces, to carry on the two jobs at the same time. Many hon. Members who have been serving' in military capacities overseas have now returned to this House for one reason alone, which is that they consider their main duty is to their constituents and to Parliament. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a more reassuring reply than the Attorney General has given in trying to persuade us to give a second Reading to the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. Adamson.]

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (TRUSTS) BILL

Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Adamson.]

Mr. MacLaren: Before the Bill passes I want to say that I hope the day is not far distant when universities will not have to rely for raising their funds upon such processes as are embodied in the Bill. The consolidation of these funds is all to the good; it is expedient and businesslike, to say the least of it, but, in view of the changes that are bound to take place over the face of our educational system, the universities should look to the future and try to come to some arrangement about their funds. In future I am sure that universities will have to depend upon the financial backing of the State rather than upon these private endowments, and that the day is coming when universities, like other educational institutions, will be better advised to pursue their true object of promoting education rather than to be constantly evolving new ways and means of raising money.
I always thought it was rather despicable to find educational institutions engaged in land speculation and finding out new ways of getting rents in order to support colleges and universities rather than in using their opportunities to dissipate this system of society. Nevertheless we find these organisations rather backing this system in order to obtain their funds. I hope they will take a different view of things in the future and will try to reach a compromise with the Government, through the President of the Board of Education or some independent education commission, whereby the funds of universities shall come from honourable sources rather than from the sources from which they are now derived.
I therefore put in that caveat at the moment, and wish to say nothing further about it. I hope that what I have said will reach the ears of these academic institutions and will make them less concerned with ways and means of getting funds and bequests and more concerned about their real function, which is to enlighten the mind and bring about a better form of society. I repeat that it is distressing to watch this side of their activities and to find representatives of colleges and universities touting around to see where they can speculate in land in this country. It has always been a reflection on our educational institutions that they should tell us on the one hand to look, for example, at the refinements of culture of Greece while they themselves are deriving rents from slum areas in the towns and villages of our country. The universities will now go on to consolidate their funds, and I hope they will come to some arrangement with the Government in the future by making over their funds to the State and getting on to a more respectable and dignified basis of existence.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I did not intend to speak on the Bill, but as I am the only University Member present, I cannot allow the speech just made by the hon. Member to pass without reply. I think that he has misjudged the whole purpose and position of the universities and colleges. There may have been some instances in the past in which they have not been the best of landlords, but, taken as a whole, I think they are now exceedingly good landlords and most desirous of doing justice to their tenants, treating them as friends and doing the very best for them.

While I recognise, as we all must, that it will be necessary in the future for more national money to be given for the work of the universities, it would be a great loss to the country if the universities were put entirely in a position of dependence upon grants received from the State. We all owe a great debt to those who make bequests for the advancement of learning and who, in the past, have made possible the work of our ancient colleges and universities. There are indeed few ways in which private possessions can be better used. I am very sorry that my hon. Friend, in his zeal for land reform, for which I have much sympathy, should have cast these reflections upon the conduct of our universities.

Mr. MacLaren: The Bill empowers the universities to enter into the market to buy more land. That is a most undignified function for a university to perform.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I gather that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is not proposing in his will to leave any of his fortune to a university. I want to make one word of protest. When he implied that those who, in the past, have left money and great benefactions to our seats of learning do not constitute an honourable source—

Mr. MacLaren: Oh, no.

The Attorney-General: With great respect to him, it may have been unintentional, but he said he hoped that universities would look to more honourable, or to honourable, sources for their funds. We do not want to prolong this Debate, but I must say that in centuries gone by, when there was no question of State grants, we surely owed the greatest debt of gratitude to those many persons who, through the Middle Ages, the founders of the trusts with which the Bill deals, did, either in life or on their death, endow our seats of learning and enable them to carry on.

Mr. MacLaren: I would not like that impression to go out. In the past, as we know, these bequests were made by distinguished people to promote learning. That is past and finished with now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The Bill empowers universities to buy land in order to secure rents to sustain universities and colleges. That is in the Bill. I am referring to the future. Now that we are


marching into a period of communal responsibility for education I hope that the universities will move in that direction father than under the powers of the Bill, entering the markets to buy and sell land. That is a most undignified source from which to get their money.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Tynemouth, a copy of which was presented to this House on 9th February, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Captain Crookshank be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Mr. Assheton be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND ACT, 1939

Ordered,
That Sir Assheton Pownall be appointed a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of section two of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS (ORDER IN COUNCIL)

REQUISITIONING AND BILLETING

Captain C. S. Taylor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order in Council, dated 13th January, 1943, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, adding Regulation 14 to the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 19th January, be annulled.
First let me say that there is no unfriendly motive behind this Motion which stands in the name of hon. Members and myself. I am sure that my right hon.

and gallant Friend will acknowledge this fact as he is well aware of the reasons which prompted hon. Members and myself to table the Motion. Although I personally approve of the suggestion that all Orders in Council and Regulations of this sort should be submitted to a Select Committee of this House for consideration, that is not the point which I want to press to-day. Rather do I want to ask for an explanation of why this Order in particular is considered necessary. In the Army any officer who requisitions property, or private dwelling houses, or other buildings, must be an officer of field rank; that is to say, he must have the rank of major or above. A flight-lieutenant in the Royal Air Force is the equivalent in rank in the R.A.F. of a captain in the Army, and I want to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend why he wishes the Air Ministry to give powers to such a comparatively junior officer, who may, in many cases, have only a few months of commissioned service. Why must the existing rule under which a squadron-leader or an officer of rank above a squadron-leader has these extensive powers now been altered?
When I was only a captain in the Army, before reaching the exalted level of field rank, I had to submit requisitioning notices to my brigadier for his approval and his signature. That happened in the days immediately after the withdrawal from Dunkirk, when Britain was under the stress and strain of imminent invasion, when decisions had to be taken at a moment's notice, and when we all realised that the country was in very grave and serious danger. Times are very different now. I think hon. Members will agree that decisions need not be taken quite so hastily as they were in those days, and that with less hasty decisions we shall avoid many of the mistakes which unfortunately were made in the days immediately after Dunkirk, and which have been made in the past. All of us from time to time have received complaints from our constituents that houses and property, and by that I mean the homes and the "castles" of the people, have been requisitioned quite unnecessarily and subsequently have been de-requisitioned by the requisitioning authority. I can speak with personal feeling on this point, because my own house was requisitioned, not by the Air Ministry, I admit, and subsequently,


after a period of months, was de-requisitioned. Although not a great deal of damage was done, because it was occupied by the Army, a great inconvenience was caused to me by what obviously was a mistake. We want to avoid these mistakes at all costs where-ever possible, and as no immediate emergency prevails, why should not these very extensive requisitioning powers continue to be vested in a senior officer or a comparatively senior officer of the Royal Air Force?
After all, a senior officer is able to make and take a responsible decision. We do not want to see our houses treated as barracks and desecrated without reason by persons who have no personal interest in their upkeep whatever, and I feel that every safeguard that can be provided should be provided. We have been at war now for some three and a half years, and this Regulation has not been considered necessary in the past. Why, I ask, is it necessary now? What circumstances have arisen which makes this change desirable? I feel that the House should demand an explanation from my right hon. and gallant Friend why the Air Ministry are asking for this Order to be included in the Defence Regulations. Without any reflection upon the administrative ability of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I regret to say that in my own experience, speaking only personally, the Air Ministry, or the R.A.F., have the worst name as far as requisitioning of property is concerned. To give an example, an hotel in my constituency was requisitioned recently, and in that hotel, perhaps unlike many other hotels throughout the country, there were very many valuable works of art and furniture. I imagine that the decision to requisition that property was taken hastily, before suitable arrangements could be made for the removal of those works of art and the furniture. No adequate arrangements were made to protect my constituent against damage to his furniture or from petty pilfering, and I feel that had some senior officer been responsible for the requisitioning of that property, those difficulties would never have arisen. I think that everybody will agree that this is wrong. I have quoted this one instance, but I could quote many, and I am perfectly certain that hon. Members on all sides could quote similar instances.
It may be said by my right hon. and gallant Friend that the administration of the Air Force is a very particular job and that the senior ranks are perhaps flying, carrying out operational duties, and that consequently it is necessary to delegate these powers to a junior officer. I cannot altogether agree with that; it is merely shelving the responsibility. I would have hon. Members realise that the administrative officer in any Army unit, the adjutant, the person who is responsible for the administration side, is only a captain; he cannot requisition property but has to go to his company commander, who is a major, or higher up, to get a signature for a requisition notice. In moving this Motion, I do ask that a satisfactory explanation shall be given to the House why this Regulation is considered necessary.

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: I beg to second the Motion.
I shall speak very briefly in support of my hon. and gallant Friend, who has cogently expressed the dislike and the distrust which many of us feel for a Defence Regulation of this kind. We feel that it can only be justified if it can be shown that it is urgently necessary in the interests of the Service Department concerned for the successful prosecution of the war, and it is certainly our duty, as Members of this House, to ask the Minister to justify it on the Floor of the House on those grounds. It may be that he will have no great difficulty in doing so, although as the Order reads, and with the limited knowledge we have, I think we have no reason whatever to think that that will be the case. After all, this Order confers on comparatively junior officers of the R.A.F. certain rather arbitrary powers in the matter of billeting, and they are powers that have hitherto been confined to an officer of the rank of squadron-leader. The Army have not come to this House and asked for simliar powers, and I understand that in the case of the Army, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, they are confined to an officer of the rank of major.
As my hon. and gallant Friend has already said, this matter of requisitioning premises for billeting does often fall very hardly on the civilian population, but I think that the public recognise that it is absolutely necessary in war-time, and they


are prepared to put up with a certain amount of hardship and great inconvenience on certain conditions. I would say that these conditions are as follow: In the first place, they wish to be satisfied that these Orders really are necessary, and, in the second, that the decisions taken in connection with requisitioning for billeting are made by senior and by responsible officers. It is quite easy to imagine that in the days of our greatest stress and emergency there may have been many instances where it was necessary to secure accommodation at the very shortest possible notice, and where senior officers could not have been available at the time on the spot. But we were not asked at that time to confer these powers on the Royal Air Force. At that time, apparently, it was found that officers of the rank of squadron leader were readily available to make these orders. It is very hard to understand why at this stage of the war the Minister should ask us to give him these powers. I hope therefore the Minister will be able to offer some sufficient explanation.

Mr. Bellenger: I rise to support the Motion. With the complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Captain Taylor) about the manner in which troops, and, of course, members of the Air Force, use the places in which they are billeted, I have a certain amount of sympathy, but I would ask him to bear in mind that soldiers and airmen in war-time obviously cannot take the same care of the places they occupy as the average citizen does. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?".] Because of the equipment of the soldier, from his boots upwards, it is obvious that as soon as he enters a house damage is likely to occur, even if he is most careful. As I understand the Order, it deals with billeting, and not with requisitioning. Requisitioning is the taking over—at least it is in the Army—of unfurnished premises, while billeting means the placing of troops into the homes of private citizens, or it may be into licensed premises. If you are going to give power to force airmen or soldiers into the homes of the people of this country, merely on the word of a flight lieutenant, I think you will be giving much too wide powers to an officer of that status. Overseas it would never have been considered right that an officer of that rank

should have imposed British soldiers upon foreigners, even though they were our Allies. What is right for the populations of countries overseas where our soldiers are billeted should be right for this country. We have to retain the good will of the civilian population of this country. That is implicit in the Army and Air Force Annual Act. It is a serious and stringent power to give to any member of the Fighting Forces, to impose his troops on the homes of the people, which we have always understood were almost sacrosanct. We realise that in war-time we have to get shelter for troops, not only British, but also foreign troops in this country.
The civilian population have responded very well, and have shown great hospitality to those members of the Fighting Forces who have been billeted on them; but there is a danger of that feeling being dissipated if these powers are used improperly, as they might well be by officers of junior rank. This Motion is not one which my right hon. and gallant Friend need resist. Surely it is not a point of great substance to him whether the billeting is done by a flight lieutenant or by a squadron leader. I should imagine that there are enough squadron leaders for it to be possible to find one in the most isolated spots. Why should we give these powers to a flight lieutenant when in the Army they are available only to officers who hold at least field rank? I urge my right hon. and gallant Friend to give consideration to the points put to him from both sides of the House. I do not think it is worth his while to resist, because he should do all in his power to continue those good relations which now exist between civilians and the Fighting Forces, and if possible to make them even better.

Mr. Woodburn: I want to make one point in support of this Motion. In my constituency we have had some experience of billeting, in regard to another Department. It has led to a great deal of difficulty, both for the billetees and for the people with whom they are billeted. It is not mainly a question of industrial workers. While every care has been taken, difficulties arise, even under the best circumstances. These difficulties have been overcome through great tact on the part of the billeting officer. If the Air Force are going into an area where billet-


ing is already in operation, there is a chance that they will duplicate and overlap the existing billeting arrangements. In this case, the Admiralty are working through a billeting officer, who is the town clerk or a local official of the civil authority. Would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider using the existing billeting authorities for doing this work, instead of allowing it to be done by his officers? That would avoid duplication and a great deal of irritation which might arise between his Department and another Department, or between his Department and the civil authorities: and it would be a much better arrangement altogether.

Major Gates: I support this Motion on a question of principle. From what I have heard, the Air Ministry has the worst reputation of all three Services over this question of billeting and requisitioning, and this seems to be a suitable opportunity to call the attention of the Minister to this matter in a friendly way. There seems to be a failure on the part of the Air Ministry to co-operate, and a tendency not to co-ordinate the billeting and requisitioning. Although this is not quite a case of billeting, I would like to mention an instance which I think is very much in point. It is a question of the erection of perimeter lights for a new aerodrome, the name of which I am prepared to give the right hon, and gallant Gentleman later. It was necessary to put up poles to carry the lights. It was a question of requisitioning for wayleave, not of billeting. Some of these poles have been put up, to the perturbation and annoyance of local farmers, in fields of growing wheat, where they are 20 yards out from the headland. I took the trouble to interview the operational pilots of that aerodrome, to find out whether it would have made any difference to their operational efficiency if those poles had been set by the hedge, into the headland, instead of 20 yards out, in the growing wheat. They assured me it would not have made the slightest difference to their operational efficiency. It is clear that what happened was that a plan was drawn, a circle was made on the map, and it was said that the perimeter lights must be put within that circle. There was no attempt to co-operate with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister

of Food, to see whether digging those holes would occasion damage to the fields. I would suggest that the Air Ministry on this matter has a reputation to live down, and that the Minister, rather than seeking powers to enable officers of junior rank to undertake this considerable responsibility of requisitioning, should send a strong Air Council Instruction to senior officers, calling attention to their obligation to the community on this question of requisitioning. An Englishman's home is his castle. We are fighting for freedom. To interfere in this matter of billeting is a very grave step. Although I am a very junior officer of field rank, I feel that the responsibility should be with officers of the Air Force who are not merely of my own, but of even higher, status.

Mr. Reakes: I rise to support this Motion because I appreciate how serious it is for mistakes to be made by junior officers, or even senior officers, in the matter of requisitioning or billeting. My constituency has had to suffer a great deal in that respect. The hon. and gallant Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Major Gates) has cited a case. I can give one far worse. A junior officer requisitioned a spot for a balloon barrage, and planted the balloon barrage in the middle of a bowling green. That indicated a lack of consideration, and a lack of responsibility. It is not so serious in the case of a bowling green; but when it is a question of property, it becomes extremely serious in a constituency like mine, where we have had a lot of bombing to endure. We want men of advanced years to deal with these matters. Although people are willing to co-operate with the Services, they want to feel they are being given due consideration. I think that the hon. Members who have supported the Motion have made out a good case. When we are dealing with the civilian population, and particularly with that portion of it which have suffered loss and damage to property, we should give them every consideration. I cannot see any reason why the Prayer should not be accepted in the spirit in which it has been moved and in the interests of the people. When the war is over the great problem, will be that of housing, and we want to feel that we are not misusing property, and, if it must be handed over to the authorities, that it is being handed over at the request of men who have had experience of life


and who realise how necessary it is to show consideration to those with whom they desire co-operation.

Sir Alfred Beit: I would like to make one small point, and I apologise if I should repeat what has already been said. Would not the whole matter be solved if the Order made it clear that the officers were of the substantive rank of flight-lieutenant? Practically every substantive flight-lieutenant in the Air Force to-day is enjoying the acting rank of at least squadron-leader or wing-commander. The public can only take the R.A.F. officer at stripe value but the Service knows what a man's real rank is. If it were laid down that permission should be granted to an officer of the substantive rank of flight-lieutenant, it would not really be less than squadron-leader who would actually do the requisitioning.

Mr. McKinlay: I have very little sympathy with the Prayer in so far as it takes exception to the right of the officer charged with this responsibility. My difficulty, irrespective of whether they are junior or senior officers, is to get the various requisitioning Ministries to admit that they have made a mistake. I say definitely that the present method, irrespective of the rank of officer, is wrong. Why requisitioning and billeting cannot be carried through by a central authority acting for all parties, I do not know. In the district where I am a member of the local authority we had 13 blocks of a new modern hospital completed—the only thing lacking was the equipment—and the building was requisitioned by the Army, but not for the purposes of a hospital. They proceeded to spend £31,000 on adapting the place as a depot for the Army. The mortar and brickwork for the alterations were scarcely dry when the Air Force came along, took over the place, knocked down the partition walls which the Army had built and shifted the position three feet either way. They proceeded to spend £11,000, plus £39,000, which, with the original £31,000 spent by the Army, made a sum of over £80,000, and still they did not use the buildings for the purpose for which they were erected. I do not know whether a lieutenant, a flight-commander or a commodore was responsible, but they also

proceeded to use materials that are in short supply, such as the material for wrapping, plumbers' fitments, and padding for the linoleum to make the place nice and comfortable. They cut an inch off all the doors to permit of their being opened over the padded linoleum, and the most luxuriously upholstered furniture arrived, so that everybody would feel at home. A N.A.A.F.I. canteen established by the Army authorities was altered to suit the R.A.F. To crown all, the Army come along and go into a town-planning area and propose to uproot trees on what was to be a permanent amenity. What do they propose doing? Build a hospital. This is rather a serious matter. Over £80,000 has been spent between the two Services, and now they propose to spend possibly another £160,000, making provision for the buildings they themselves have taken over. That is an absurd position.
It is not a question of the rank of the officer doing the requisitioning. There are too many of these fellows going about the country with sheaves of requisitioning forms, which they stick under the door like serving a notice to quit, and that is the end of it. Is there a Minister who will admit that he has made a mistake? That would never do. The difficulties of hon. Members are that they have to treat with the Admiralty, the War Office, and the R.A.F., and I suppose that by the time they have pursued all the different Departments the Departments think that the war will have been finished and all will be forgotten. I would impress upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the necessity of having a central requisitioning authority, upon which there would be the representatives of all the three Services. One authority should do the requisitioning, and they should be satisfied, first, that the requisitioning is necessary and, secondly, that what they propose to requisition will cause the least inconvenience and cost the least possible sum of money.
May I have the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the position with regard to the R.A.F. station to which I have drawn his attention will be considered? I do not want to be misunderstood. If this were a fighter or a bomber station where these lads were to come back for rest after doing strenuous duty, I should be the last man in the


world to raise any objection. They deserve all the comfort we can give them, but it is a sheer waste of public money to put three inches of packing under linoleum in war-time. I ask for an assurance that, if we do not support the Prayer insisting upon an officer of higher rank—I think that officers of higher rank are often very silly and less experienced in dealing with property than some of the younger men—steps shall be taken so that there will be closer co-ordination between the Services in connection with requisitioning and billeting.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I can take no exception either to the Order being raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Captain Taylor) or to the tenor of the speeches which have been made as regards this Order. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked for a sympathetic reply from me to the representations made against this Order. I would only ask that equally I may have a sympathetic appreciation of hon. Members of the House as regards the arguments which I hope to put forward in support of this particular Regulation. Let us clear our minds as to what this proposed Order really is. We have had most interesting speeches from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne, the hon. and gallant Member for Middleton (Major Gates), the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) and the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, (Mr. McKinlay) on the very important subject of requisitioning on which much could be said and upon which a lot of time could be spent profitably debating the merits and demerits of our present procedure, but it has not to do with the Order at all. This Order has nothing to do with the requisitioning of property at all. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire asked me in a powerful and moving peroration that I should give him an assurance as regards a particular instance of requisitioning. He knows as well as I do that I can give him no such assurance, and did I endeavour to do so Mr. Deputy-Speaker could quite easily rule me out of Order for dealing with a subject which is not germane to this particular Order or to the Prayer, and I am not going to risk it. Equally the hon. and gallant Member for Middle-ton raised the question of wayleaves—

very important no doubt, and if he will write to me about it, I will try to get him all the facts and information I can, but I have equally to admit that it has nothing at all to do with the particular question of billeting.
The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Prayer asked for an explanation as to why the Regulation is necessary, and he very charmingly explained to me afterwards why it was not necessary in the same way as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth). He said that we would only be justified in bringing the Order forward if we proved that it was necessary, but he condemned me at once by saying that it was clear that I could not do that. He made me feel that I should be embarking upon rather a hopeless task unless I was absolutely certain of the ground upon which I was standing. I propose to explain firstly, what this Order does, secondly why it is necessary, and thirdly why we are proceeding in the present manner. The Order in Council of 13th January concerning which this Prayer has been moved adds Regulation 14 to the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, adding to the powers defined in Section 108A of the Air Force Act. That particular Section says:
His Majesty's Government by Order distinctly stating that a case of emergency exists and signified by a Secretary of State may authorise any officer not below the rank of squadron-leader"….
We propose to amend that to "flight-lieutenant." The proposed Regulation gives power to flight-lieutenants to issue billeting requisitions. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw touched upon a very vital question of the need for good relationship to be retained between the civilian population and the Armed Forces of the Crown, with which I am heartily in agreement. It is not the case, as he foreshadowed, that this Order or indeed Section 108A allows Air Force officers to force people into civilian homes in this country. All that this Order does is to allow a flight-lieutenant to sign a billeting requisition, which is only an intimation that so much accommodation is required, and that intimation goes to the police. It is the local police who have the responsibility of finding the billets, and not the Air Force officer. I hope that that will have cleared his mind on that particular point. The reason for this Regulation is because experience—

Mr. Mathers: May we understand the position? We are told that the responsibility for finding actual billets falls upon the local police. What kind of directions are given by the requisitioning officers to the police? We are thinking of the exercise of these functions in perhaps a remote part of the country. The local police in some places have very little choice in that matter at all.

Mr. Tinker: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make a little clearer how it is done, because many of us get complaints about it, and it is a good thing to know the law on the subject?

Captain Balfour: If a party of men arrive at a certain place and require billeting accommodation, the billeting order is signed at present by a squadron-leader. We are now asking for power to enable a flight-lieutenant to sign it. The requisition then goes to the local billeting authority, normally the police, who are asked to get accommodation as near as possible to where the men are working. It is the responsibility of the police to do their best.

Mr. Tinker: Have the police the final say in determining what shall be the billets?

Captain Balfour: So far as I know, but the police cannot find billets in any place if billets are not available.

Sir A. Beit: Is it not a fact that the police take these requisitions as orders which have to be obeyed?

Captain Balfour: Obviously, common sense enters into the question. Nobody tries to force an issue and get billets where they do not exist. The reason we are asking for this Regulation is that experience has shown us that serious inconvenience and dislocation are caused by the fact that only an officer not below the rank of squadron-leader can sign these billeting requisition orders. For instance, we have found difficulty, in the Maintenance Command, which has the task of looking after small isolated units where perhaps there are single aircraft and has often to send out parties to deal with aircraft which have crashed.
They have to dismantle these aircraft and bring them in—a task peculiar to the Royal Air Force. In the Army there is

nothing comparable to that particular requirement. There are many small and isolated units which are set up under an officer of a rank junior to squadron-leader as commanding officer. Under the present Regulations a squadron-leader has to be found, wherever such an officer may be, in order to sign the billeting requisition. I am sure the House will understand that such procedure entails a loss of time and unnecessary travel. We have, furthermore, a constant interchange of men. Suppose a party has to salve a wrecked aircraft. Perhaps the instruments are required, so instrument men come out for one or two days and take them away. Then another two men may come out to dismantle the armament, the hydraulics or some other component. These men have to be found accommodation. If the unit is commanded by a flight-lieutenant, it means that at present he has to find a squadron-leader at the parent unit or some other unit to sign the requisition.
I want to assure the House that it is our intention to continue the procedure of billeting requisitions being signed normally by officers of the rank of squadron-leader or above that rank. It is my duty to endeavour to persuade Members not to press this Motion, because we really do want this Order. I am willing to give this assurance, that we will tell Commands that this Order, if we are allowed to have it, is only to be used when there is no squadron-leader available. If no squadron-leader is available but a flight-lieutenant is available, then the flight-lieutenant may use these powers. There is no attempt here on the part of the Air Ministry to ride roughshod over the civilian population. I am glad that this matter has been ventilated, because as well as being a member of the Executive, I am a House of Commons man, and I am all for the supremacy of the Legislature over the Executive. In this case the Legislature has arraigned the Executive—that is myself—and has asked the Executive to justify these proposals. I hope I have given a reasonable and fair explanation as to why these proposals are necessary and an assurance that administratively we shall only use these powers as and when necessary in order to minimise trouble and make the war effort by so much more efficient.
An alternative method of proceeding by Defence Regulation would have been


to have a Regulation which amended the Air Force Act. Such Amendment would have been incorporated, subject to Parliament's consent, in the Air Force Act, 1943, and the powers would have continued year after year unless Parliament decreed otherwise, whereas by this method the powers we are asking the House to allow us to have will lapse automatically when His Majesty decrees that the state of emergency has lapsed. We need the powers for only a limited period. Had we had to ask for an amendment of the Air Force Act, we should have put ourselves into the position of asking for powers for a longer period than we do, in fact, want them for. Therefore, I hope the House will realise that there is no attempt on the part of the Executive to flout the guardians of the rights of the civil population and will allow us to have this Regulation.

Mr. Mathers: I feel sure that in the light of the statement made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the good temper which has prevailed during this discussion the withdrawal of the Prayer will ensue. To many of us, looking at this Order, it seemed that the last Ministry to come before us for an Order of this kind should be the Air Ministry. I say that because of the youth of the personnel of the Royal Air Force. In this question of interfering with the homes of the people the glorious youth of the Royal Air Force is a disadvantage rather than the advantage it is to us in other respects. The Minister has met us reasonably and although I do not want to strike a controversial note I do want to contrast the discussion on this Order with a discussion that took place on another Order during our last series of Sittings when the Minister involved was a member of my own party. On that occasion there was no question of a request to the Minister to be kind enough to give an explanation of it; there was a demand for his scalp and an annulment of the Order—

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask whether, if this case is to be made from the other side, we are to be allowed to reply to it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I had my eye on the hon. Mem-

ber as he was speaking and I was about to rise to say that he must not discuss what happened on that occasion.

Mr. Mathers: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I saw your eye upon me and I was aware of the danger I was running.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member knew he could not be answered.

Mr. Mathers: If I were allowed to discuss the episode to which I made passing reference, I am sure I could justify the thoughts that were simmering in my mind as I listened to the admirable way in which the present discussion has been conducted.

Mr. Tinker: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraws the Motion—

Captain Taylor: How does the hon. Member know that I shall withdraw it?

Mr. Tinker: One can sense the atmosphere of the House. I want to say that I am very pleased this Debate has taken place. Those who read the Debate will be able to get some information as to what can be done and what are the powers of the Royal Air Force and the police in this matter.

Captain Taylor: I understand I have the right to reply. I will be very brief, because I think my right hon. and gallant Friend has been exceedingly helpful in the concessions he has made. I would like to point out to the House that this Order is very different from the Order that was discussed the other day.

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order——

Captain Taylor: I regard the suggestion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) as iniquitous. It is stirring up party politics and a breach of the political truce.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must not discuss that.

Captain Taylor: I am sorry Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I agree the whole argument is rather contemptible. I am glad to hear from my right hon. and gallant Friend that a flight lieutenant is not to have powers of requisitioning, but is only to have the power of signing a billeting order. I would like to draw attention, however, to the fact that when these orders are handed to the police they regard


them as orders to be obeyed. While agreeing with my right hon. and gallant Friend about the small units responsible for salving aircraft, I admit that there are occasions when a flight lieutenant may be placed in a very difficult position if he has no authority for billeting the men under his command. I would like to suggest that where a flight lieutenant signs a billeting order such as this he should sign for, and on behalf of, a squadron leader, because it is not only a question of rank; it is a question of responsibility. Hon. Members have said that I would withdraw this Prayer and, of course, I will, but I would like to put that point to my right hon. and gallant Friend for his consideration. With those words, and following the helpful explanation which he has given to us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (DETAINEES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

Sir Irving Albery: I want to raise a matter arising from a Question which I put to the Home Secretary the other day, as follows:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds a letter dated 11th January, addressed to the Editor of 'The Times' from Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, K.B.E., at present detained in Brixton gaol, was intercepted?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1943; col. 599, Vol. 386.]
I would like to say that I have never met Sir Barry Domvile personally and that he is quite unknown to me except by his public record, which is extremely distinguished. I will not go into all the details of his various commands, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the important posts he has filled, more or less on the staff side. Sir Barry Domvile was Assistant Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence of 1913 to 1914; director of the Plans Division at the Admiralty from 1920–22; Chief of Staff of the Mediterranean from 1922–25; Director of the Naval Intelligence Division from 1927–30; President of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich and Vice-

Admiral commanding the War College from 1932–34. In addition to that he has of course filled many other important posts and commands afloat.
It is evident that there are persons who have admirable and distinguished records of loyal service to their country but who, nevertheless, are at the present moment detained under Regulation 18B on the grounds of suspicion that if they were at liberty they might do some harm to their country in this present critical war period. On the other hand, there are persons whose record in the last war was not so good and who at present hold responsible positions and are rendering valuable service to their country in the war. Therefore, it cannot be denied that exceptional positions do and can arise. Nevertheless, I submit that in judging any man one must pay, not merely some regard, but substantial regard, to his past record, and for myself I find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that a man with the distinguished service and long and loyal record of service to his country which appears to be the case with reference to Admiral Sir Barry Domvile could possibly at any time intentionally do anything which would be detrimental to his country. Further, I submit that if some person or persons have grounds for believing the contrary to be the case, then, in a case of that kind and with a record of that sort, it would be the duty of the House to make certain that there was no misjudgment taking place, and that it would be insufficient to accept an accusation of that kind solely on the responsibility of any—no matter who he is, not even the Prime Minister—single Member of the Executive unless it was corroborated in some form or other, such as by some inquiry other than the Advisory Committee, which in its present form is not sufficient. I want now to read the answer which the Home Secretary made. He said:
Persons detained under Regulation 18B are allowed to communicate with relatives and friends, with legal advisers and with Members of Parliament; but the sending out of matter for publication stands on a different footing from the writing of letters to individuals. No distinction, could be drawn between publications which take the form of letters to the Press and those which take other forms such as articles or pamphlets. Detention necessarily entails the curtailment of many activities including propaganda activities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1943; col. 599, Vol. 386.]


I want the House to consider what is propaganda. As far as I understand it, propaganda is an endeavour to communicate and to spread your views on certain principles. That is a rough and ready definition, and no doubt there are other definitions. I readily recognise that communications to and from those persons who are detained on suspicion have to be censored, and they are censored, but I can see no reason whatever why a person who happens to be detained under Regulation 18B, and who probably finds time hanging very wearily on his hands—I think it affects some of these people not merely physically but also mentally—should not write articles which would be subject to censorship. I will give the sort of idea I have in mind. It might be pleasing to a man like Admiral Sir Barry Domvile to write some articles on Naval strategy or on his past experiences in the Services. Are we to understand that, because he is detained on suspicion under Regulation 18B, that would not be allowed?
On the other hand, he might wish to write to the Press on some subject in which he takes an interest. Are these people to have no interests? Provided it does not infringe any of the Regulations or touch upon any matter which would be contrary to the purpose for which he is detained, is there any reason why he should not write such letters if the Press cares to print them? Administratively it would not seem to me to present any difficulty. I suppose that such a person is allowed only so many letters, and a letter to the Press would count as one. The letters have to be censored in any case, and I should have thought a letter would be doubly safe if written to the Press, because to-day the Press are very careful and do not print anything until they are quite sure that the Government approve of it, as far as I can see. Nothing could be safer.
But there is a bigger principle at stake than that. The freedom of the individual in this country has three principal safeguards. The first is the House of Commons. The second is the Press. The third is the judiciary. I regret to say that, in my opinion, the only one of those three which has functioned so far to some extent successfully, and certainly with more enthusiasm than the other two, is

the judiciary, in spite of the fact that this House has to some extent curtailed their powers and prevented them from performing functions which have always been considered constitutionally to be the proper functions of the judiciary. It is they who are constantly giving warnings, and in doing so they have served their country to the best of their ability. The House listens all too little to the warnings which they give.
The last point that arises is this. Are we to understand that persons detained under Regulation 18B are also deprived of civil liberties? It seems to me that the writing of a letter to the Press is essentially a civil liberty. Are they merely submitted to such Regulations as are essential, in the opinion of the Home Secretary, for the safety of the State, or are they, in addition, to be submitted to other impositions which in no way involve the safety of the State but which, in fact, curtail their civil liberties as citizens of this country? In the circumstances, I thought it more courteous and in every way desirable to obtain the permission of the Home Secretary to read the letter which Admiral Sir Barry Domvile wrote to "The Times" and which was intercepted by the Home Office. It is as follows:

"January 11th, from Brixton Prison.

To the Editor of 'The Times.'

SIR.

After two and a half years in this prison, under Defence Regulation 18B, I have a few remarks to make which concern all British subjects, in regard to this deplorable page in the history of our native land. I feel sure that future generations will be ashamed of the 'reasonable causes' which are considered justifiable for the indefinite imprisonment of hundreds of men and women. The public was led to believe that we were people who might help our enemies. That was 'the most unkindest cut of all'. All are agreed that the Executive must be empowered to act promptly in time of war in apprehending suspects. But such special powers call for additional, not fewer, safeguards against injustice to the King's subjects. The Home Secretary's Advisory Committee affords no such safeguards. In connection with the proceedings of that Committee, does the public realise:

(1) That the 'particulars' received by the prisoner before confronting the Advisory Committee are vague statements which have little bearing on the case and are therefore of scant use to the prisoner?
(2) That, in the course of the search on arrest, the prisoner is deprived of evidence bearing on his case and is refused access to it before his Committee hearing?


(3) That the Home Secretary consistently refuses to state a case against the prisoner, thus making it impossible for the prisoner to defend himself?
(4) That the assistance of a lawyer, or any other advisor, during the hearing of the Committee is refused on grounds of security, whilst in high treason trials involving the most secret matters lawyers are admitted to court?
(5) That the prisoner is refused a copy of the shorthand record of his hearing before the Advisory Committee, without which it is impossible for him to check the accuracy of the record, or to recall the wide range of matters raised?

The following colloquy, which took place at an Advisory Committee hearing, illustrates some of the foregoing points:

Prisoner: May I be confronted with my accusers?—Chairman: No.

May I have my lawyer at my side to assist me?—No.

Will you call witnesses for interrogation in my presence?—No.

May I question your witnesses?—No.

May I know who your witnesses are?—No.

Will you produce your evidence for my inspection?—No.

May I have access to my own material now in your possession?—No.

May I have a copy of the stenographic notes of this secret hearing?—No.

Will your finding be made known to me?—No.

Have I the right of appeal?—No.

At this point the Chairman interrupted abruptly saying: 'I would like to remind you that you are here to answer, not ask, questions.'

The remedy is simple: trial or release—the British method."

That is the signed statement of a man with a brilliant record in the service of his country. He has been in Brixton Gaol for some considerable time. I do not know—I cannot know, and neither can any Member of the House—whether the statement is definitely and strictly accurate in every particular. That is one reason why it is desirable that this matter should be raised, and the hon. Gentleman who is to reply, will be able to tell us to what extent the statements contained in the letter are accurate and to what extent, if any, they are inaccurate. There can, however, be no doubt in my mind or in the mind of any fair-minded man that if most of the statements contained in the letter are accurate, then the manner in which these people are detained is not only contrary to British ideas and to our traditional justice, but, in addition, is contrary in every respect,

I am sure, to the intention of the House. After the war, when victory has been won, those who have maintained the British Bastille at Brixton—because it is nothing but a Bastille—and those who have damaged the prestige of Parliament by consenting thereto will surely come up for judgment. I should like to quote a few more words which will possibly be recognised by some hon. Members:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.

Those are the words of William Pitt the Younger. I hope my right hon. Friend will deal specifically with the statements that have been made regarding the Advisory Committee and also with the question of what are the Regulations governing these persons who are detained without trial for long periods, no matter what their previous record, in Brixton Gaol, and, more particularly, are they to be deprived of what they regard as ordinary civil liberties?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Until I heard Sir Barry Domvile's letter read out, I had not seen its contents, nor did I know what he had written. As far as my memory serves me, I have never spoken personally to him. Hon. Members who have heard my hon. Friend's speech must surely be searching their hearts as to whether it is right that the circumstances in which these people are detained should be what they are. My views about Regulation 18B are well known to my fellow Members. I have never denied the necessity for there being some Regulation of that kind. It is an unfortunate necessity, forced upon us by the war, that in certain circumstances people should be detained without trial, but when a convicted prisoner is asked what he can say in his own defence, his past record, whether it is good or bad, is counted for or against him. It does not therefore seem to me to be right that men and women locked up under 18B should not be entitled to have their past good records taken into consideration. Surely in deciding whether a man or woman is likely to be a danger to the State, it is essential that their past record of service should be considered. It is pleaded that it is necessary for the safety of the community that these people should be kept in detention. Some have been there for many years.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Quisling, the most notorious of all the types of traitor, was a K.C.B.?

Sir A. Southby: Before the last war one of the most notorious traitors was a Member of this House. I do not think that is a relevant remark at all. I am pleading for justice, just as much for the hon. Member as for anyone else. It is not a matter of personal opinion or personal spite or of different political points of view or of party bias. It is the inherent right of men and women to obtain justice. If it is right to detain these people because it is in the interest of the State that they should be under lock and key, surely every effort should be made to make their detention as little irksome as possible. I did not hear anything in the letter that did not seem to me quite reasonable for a man to write, subject to the censorship if necessary, or for the paper to be allowed to print. Why was the letter stopped? It is true that, on more than one occasion, letters from persons detained in prison to Members of this House have been stopped, but it is the inalienable right of every unconvicted person, in prison, or of a man in the Forces, to communicate with his Member of Parliament, and I deny the right of any Executive to take that right away. Many years ago, when the liberties of this House were in jeopardy, the House wrote a Memorandum, which was called the Apology of the House of Commons, in which they maintained that their Privileges were the general liberties of England. In that document are these remarkable words:
The prerogative of Princes,"—
which means in effect the prerogative of the Executive—
may easily and daily grow while the privileges of the subject are for the most part at an everlasting stand.
Looking back over the last three years, it must be admitted that the power of the executive over the individual has grown to such an extent that individual liberty has to a large extent disappeared. That may be inevitable in war-time, but, after all, these men and women have been detained often under conditions the reverse of good. Members who were in London during the blitz can imagine what it must have been like to be under lock and key. That smacks to me of the concentration camp in Germany. We complain rightly

of the tyranny of the German concentration camp. Let us be careful that we do not allow some of that tyranny to creep in here. Some say we should have more people detained and not fewer. I disagree. I would detain anyone who is an enemy of the State, but I should hope and pray that the spirit of the country was such that there would be very few people detained. We are fighting for freedom—the freedom of expression of opinion. No one can say that the letter to "The Times" from this very distinguished officer, whatever he has done, could have caused the slightest injury to the war effort.
Are these people to be deprived of all means of exercising their minds? For a time they were not even allowed to have food brought in by a wife or husband outside, a piece of petty tyranny for which there was absolutely no excuse. If I wished, I could give part, or all, of my butter ration to my wife, but for a time these people were not allowed to take in to their husbands or wives in prison such part of their rations as they wished to give them in order to try to make their lot a little more easy to bear. A person who has been charged has the right of talking to his or her lawyer in secret, but that right has been denied up to now to those detained under 18B. On what ground? Is it suggested that the legal representative may be a danger to the State if he hears something and takes it outside? Surely that is rather insulting to the great legal profession. I am sure that most solicitors and barristers would be perfectly capable of discussing with interned persons the circumstances of their case and keeping it secret. In a previous Debate I raised the case of a Mrs. Nicholson, who was charged, tried and acquitted and then taken back to internment on the same charge and was not allowed to discuss her case with her solicitor without a member of the prison staff being within earshot.
I beg hon. Members to consider this question again. I know that the preoccupations of the war are very great, and that other things seem much more important, but I believe that the most important thing for us to consider now and in the future is the liberty of the subject. We have had three years in which to consider the whole of this question of internment. It may well be that there are people now interned who should have


been tried and shot long ago, but it may also be that there are many still interned who might perfectly well be at liberty. Do not let us make the lot of these people any harder than it is. I do not think anyone realises what it means to these people if they are in fact innocent—I have no sympathy with those who are not—who have to go through this war day by day and night by night in internment. The stigma of their internment—remember they have never been tried nor convicted—will stick to them and their children and their children's children for all time. If that is what the House of Commons thinks should go on there is nothing much more to be done about it, but surely it should excite our attention to ask whether the time has not come when there can be some form of appeal. Everyone knows that this Advisory Committee really does not meet the case. When the letter to the "Times" was read, the individual was told that he was there to answer questions, but the man who is asking the questions has a secret dossier in front of him so that the person who is being questioned does not know what is behind the questions that are asked. That is a travesty of justice.
I believe a case has been made out for a further investigation into this whole system. There must be a Regulation 18B. I realise how essential it is in time of war, and how very much more essential it would be in case of invasion, that there should be the power to apprehend people and keep them under lock and key untried, but there can be no justification for trying a person and taking him back after he has been acquitted. That is a monstrous abuse of the liberties and rights of the subject. It is in direct contravention with everything that our forefathers have fought for in the past. It is unjustifiable, but it has passed almost unnoticed. Some of these people have good records. Naturally I get quite a postbag and it is hard to tell which are genuine cases and which are not. One letter was sent by some ex-Servicemen who are interned and who told me that they all had their medal ribbons for the last war and that many of them had earned decorations. All that they wanted was to be given a chance to fight again in this war. Yet they are interned under 18B and they have no chance of proving whether they are

entitled to serve or not. This matter has now been brought up again and one almost despairs of public opinion being roused against it. It is inherent in the whole question of the liberty of the subject, to maintain which we have been sent to this place. If my hon. Friend in bringing up this case of a man who has been deprived of the chance of exercising his brain and ingenuity and doing something to counteract the deadly monotony of prison life, turns the minds of this House and the public once again to the condition of those in prison, who may be innocent and who are suffering because they cannot prove their innocence, the Debate will not have been in vain.

Mr. Boothby: I hope that the House will forgive me for intervening on this question for I have no longer any personal interest in the matter. One detainee in whom I took an especial interest has been released. In regard to Sir Barry Domvile, I know nothing except that I believe he served in the last war in the Harwich Force, under Admiral Sir Reginald Tyrwhitt. If-any force covered itself with honour and glory in the whole of British history more than the Harwich Force, I have yet to learn of it. That, at any rate, is something to be said in Admiral Domvile's favour. The letter to "The Times" and this Debate is an inevitable consequence of the failure of His Majesty's Government to deal with the situation that has arisen following the passing of the Regulations 18B and 12(5) (a) during a period of supreme emergency when we were threatened with invasion at any moment. The House was right at that time to pass any measure for the security of the Realm, but it was not anticipated by many hon. Members that these Regulations would be in force for longer than a period of the few months of supreme danger. We do not now say that we want these Regulations abolished; we want them amended to meet the requirements of a completely fresh situation.
These detentions, which nobody objected to in 1940, and which covered practically everybody against whom there was any suspicion, were expected to last for a period of few weeks. They have now become penal servitude for an indefinite number of years, as long as the war may last. This means imprisonment without trial, without charge, and they involve a stigma


and an agony of mind which only those of us who have seen some of the detainees, who genuinely believe they are innocent, and do not know what they are there for, can fully appreciate or understand. That is not justice. It is quite alien to our British way of life. I submit most earnestly that the Advisory Committees no longer meet the requirements of the present situation. We want, and we must go on pressing for—and one day perhaps we will get it—a properly constituted appeals tribunal, a legal tribunal before which these people can present their cases. The cases should be heard in camera under such conditions as may be laid down in the interests of national security. Detainees should have the right to consult their solicitors in private, to he represented by counsel, and to cross-examine witnesses.
I admit that the Home Secretary went a little way to meet us the other day in reply to a Question I put to him, when he said that except in the very rarest cases detainees under 18B would have the right, which they have never had before, to consult their solicitors in private. Every prisoner at the bar, whatever charge is brought against him, has the right to consult a solicitor in private. An enemy alien on a charge of espionage has the same right. Only detainees who are suspected, and against whom there is not sufficient evidence to bring a major charge, are not allowed to consult a solicitor in private. That is a travesty of justice. And it is a slight indication of the mind of the Home Secretary that he said in reply to a Supplementary Question, that he would draw a distinction, so far as the right of consulting solicitors is concerned, between British subjects and friendly aliens, and that British subjects ought to be given a preference, in this matter at any rate. Why should we give a preference to anybody so far as the administration of justice is concerned? British justice for centuries has been the admiration of the world, and has not been built up by giving a preference to any one class of subject. Everybody in the eyes of British law is equal, or should be, and should have equal rights.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has pointed out that if we are fighting this war for anything, we are fighting it for freedom and individual liberty. Nothing will persuade me that we can ever forward our

cause by denying that liberty in any single instance. We are locking people up without charge or trial. It may be in the interests of security that some of them should be locked up; and I am sure that, if some of them were tried properly, they would be sentenced. For them I would have no mercy at all. If, however, we cannot get sufficient evidence to bring a charge against them and convict them, the least we can do is to allow them to plead their case in private before some properly constituted legal tribunal, and not saddle the Home Secretary for the rest of the war with the sole responsibility for keeping them in prison for an indefinite period of penal servitude. Let them be given facilities for pleading their cases before a properly constituted tribunal. And if the tribunal decides that they cannot be released in the interests of security, on the ground that the suspicions against them are too great, then give them reasonable civil liberties inside prison, so long as they remain unconvicted on a specific charge. That is all we ask. We shall go on asking for it. Some hon. Members think that some of us who plead for justice for these detainees are little better than Fascists, but that is quite untrue. We have no interest in the enemies of our country, but we do plead on behalf of British justice and individual liberty. In doing so we feel that we are following a tradition of this House that is not ignoble, a tradition that was started by Mr. Pym and Mr. Hampden in the days of the fight against the Stuarts, and was carried on by Mr. Fox. The torch they lit ought still to be carried in the House to-day.

Mr. Driberg: I intervene with some diffidence because I had no idea that this matter was coming up to-day. I therefore have not with me the documents with which I could substantiate what I want to say. I simply do not want it to go out from here that any substantial portion of this House or of the community at large is seriously perturbed about the administration of 18B. Those of us who support the Home Secretary in this matter do not suggest that hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), are in any way Fascist or near-Fascist. All that we suggest is that they are somewhat lacking in a sense of proportion. There are far worse infringements of liberty which have to be put up


with in the war than this particular infringement. I maintain that the Home Secretary has repeatedly shown that 18B as it is administered is necessary and that he personally administers it with great consideration and the utmost care. Do let us keep some sense of proportion in this matter. Hon. Members have spoken in moving and noble terms of the liberties our forefathers fought for. Really, these liberties that our forefathers fought for—many liberties, including and not exclusively liberty of the subject—are the very liberties which would have been completely, not partially, destroyed if the philosophy of the friends of the 18B detainees had prevailed in this country. We have heard from an hon. Member opposite of the pathos of these unfortunate 18B people during the blitz, and I agree that it must have been a most unpleasant situation for them in Brixton Prison if, in fact, they were kept in their cells during the blitz. I am not sure about that. Perhaps the hon. Member is sure of his facts on that point.

Mr. Boothby: Some of those in prison during the blitz were Communists. Does the hon. Member feel just the same about them?

Mr. Driberg: We are talking about whether they got protection, and I, am saying that I do agree that it must have been an extremely unpleasant situation for them during the blitz, but again I must remind hon. Members that the main part of them were people who would probably have gladly led the Nazi authors of the blitz in triumph into this City of London. We have heard harrowing comparisons between Brixton and the concentration camps of Germany. They are far-fetched comparisons indeed, and there, again, precisely the same argument applies. These are people who would have installed the horrors of the concentration camps here for very large numbers of our fellow citizens if they had had their way.

Sir A. Southby: If my hon. Friend makes that statement surely he must have some foundation for it, and if he has evidence which would go to show that any one of those persons would have acted in such a traitorous way, it is his duty to put his information at the disposal of the State, so that such a person

could then be charged and tried. As far as I can see, the hon. Member is merely saying something which is his own opinion and is quite unsubstantiated.

Mr. Driberg: Not at all. I can substantiate it by reference to their views. I do not say that all these people were guilty of actual treason to the extent of selling information to the enemy, or something of that sort, but they are people of specifically Nazi and Fascist sympathies, and, therefore, I am entitled to say that they would probably have led the Nazi authors of the blitz in triumph into this city, and have been glad to do so. Quite a lot of very unpleasant data about that kind of thing came out when one of these 18B detainees was rash enough to bring an action against the "New York Times." The judge in that case made some pretty damning references to the character of that detainee. He was, I regret, an hon. Member of this House. No doubt we should feel sympathy with that particular detainee for whatever he may have endured during the blitz, and one feels a certain amount of sympathy with anybody who is detained over a long period, but in this case I think the real condolences should be extended to the constituents of that hon. Member, who have been for so long disfranchised.
It may be said that these people are merely detained for their opinions, and that, as the hon. and gallant Member has just said, I am merely expressing my opinion of them, but I would remind hon. Members that this is not an old fashioned, purely national war, but a war of opinions and ideas, an ideological war, and although it is said loosely that we are fighting for freedom, it is necessary to define freedom and the extent of it before you condemn those who in the inevitable exercise of authority do impose some restrictions on the freedom of a dissident minority. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen said that this may have been justified two years ago, but that there is now a completely fresh situation, and that therefore 18B is, possibly, no longer as justified as it was. There is no longer the danger of physical invasion, perhaps, but I am not satisfied that the political aspect of the war is so completely safe that we need no longer fear a subtle attack by the friends of the enemy in this country. I think the situation, physically, is com-


pletely different from what it was two years ago, but I am not so sure that it is completely different politically and psychologically.

Mr. Boothby: By way of explanation may I say that my point was that the passage of time had turned this detention into something' like penal servitude, and that that created a new situation.

Mr. Driberg: Is the hon. Member suggesting that they have purged their offences by the passage of time, because if so, I cannot say that I entirely agree?

Mr. Boothby: No.

Mr. Driberg: Again, with all respect to the honourable and distinguished records in the last war of these detainees, I submit that that is quite irrelevant, because people who served with honour in the last war may well have gone wrong afterwards in one way or another. If we are talking about the records of people, Sir Barry Domvile gave distinguished service in the last war, no doubt, but in the period immediately preceding this war his political record was anything but honourable and very far from distinguished. I have very clear recollections indeed of the poisonous articles that he wrote in the "Anglo-German Review" and of photographs of Sir Barry Domvile with a portrait of Hitler hung above his desk, and that kind of thing. It is just as well to remind ourselves now and then of these facts in order to keep a sense of proportion about these poor, innocent detainees. I think it was from Hegel, but hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, that Engels borrowed his famous definitition of freedom as the recognition of necessity. I submit that that is a definition which is exceedingly applicable to this present Debate. We have had to give up all sorts of freedoms during this war for the purpose of waging it more efficiently. The freedom of the Press has been limited, trade unions rights have been limited; it is not only the liberty of the subject that has been limited; if anything, that has been limited rather less than the others. All these freedoms have been voluntarily limited by the people of this country for the efficient waging of the war, and I submit that this is a necessity—regrettable, perhaps, but none the less a necessity—of this war which we must accept.

Mr. Pickthorn: I believe it is necessary that this Debate

should end in a couple of hours, and if that is so, it is not possible to begin by traversing all that was traversable in the remarks of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). I resemble him in one particular only, so far as I am aware, and that is that I also did not know that this subject was to be raised until a few minutes before this Debate started. It ought not to be necessary for anyone to protest that interest in this subject in no way involves any kind of political or intellectual sympathy with any of the persons suffering from these administrative Regulations and if it were necessary so to protest, I think I may say without vanity that I should have as little need for it as anyone, because it is within the recollection of the House that I have been interested in this subject since long before any such question could be raised.
The principal point to which I wish to draw attention is one which, I think, is made all the more urgent by reason of the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon. May I have the attention of the Treasury Bench, because I do really want to be heard by them? It is this: this subject, of all subjects, except major strategic factors—themselves perhaps not subjects very amenable to House of Commons discussion—is the  important subject which the House of Commons can discuss, in any long view; and I beg my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider whether this subject should not always be discussed in the presence of his right hon. Friend. I know that it has been suggested earlier in the Debate to-day, and in a Debate on the question of administrative Orders—by some supposed to be administrative excesses—a week ago that there is some kind of party prejudice in this matter and that some of us prefer criticising a Minister of one party to criticising a Minister of another party. I assure hon. Members opposite that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as I am capable of examining my own conscience, I prefer criticising and attacking a Tory Minister to attacking a Socialist Minister. Hon. Members need not give special credit to me for that, because there are obvious reasons of self-interest why we might prefer to destroy a Tory Minister rather than others. Hon. Members will know that once you get into the House it is the chaps of your own party you really begin to know well enough to dislike, rather than the chaps of the other party.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member will not get us to believe that.

Mr. Pickthorn: It was particularly desirable that I should ask for the Home Secretary to be present on these occasions and it was not in the least because I wished to attack him. It is because he is the Home Secretary.

Sir I. Albery: Perhaps I ought to say that the Home Secretary would have been present if he had not had an important engagement.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sure he had an important engagement, and I was not in the least attacking him for not being present. I am only suggesting that one of the safeguards which the House as a whole ought to ask from the Executive is that, as a matter of rule, the principal Minister responsible for the Executive action under criticism ought to be present, when this subject, more important than any other, is under Debate. I do ask Ministers to consider very carefully whether it could not be so considered. Of course, we shall all understand that there might be occasions when the Home Secretary could not be present here, but it ought to be in the main, the business of the Homeretary to be here on these occasions to hear what is said.
The last speech we listened to seemed to be nothing but the enjoyment of the casting of accusations and innuendoes against those who are known not to be in a position to reply.

Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Member say the same of the learned judge, to whose comments on the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) I referred?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not bound to have any opinion on the matter to which the hon. Member refers, which is not before the House and of which I have had no notice. [Laughter.] Nor really is there anything for derision in that reply. I could not know that the remarks of a judge upon a particular case were to be submitted to my scrutiny to-day and, not knowing that, I have not read the remarks, and I do not propose to pass any judgment upon them.
There are three main arguments in this matter to which I ask my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench particularly,

and the House in general, to pay attention. First is the need that there should be some people who, recognising the necessity for these unusual administrative powers, are convinced, in consequence of that recognition, that there should be some people who do their best to see that those unusual administrative powers are used with the minimum of danger to our constituted liberties. Also—and I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to think that this is right and proper, whatever one's political prejudices may be—the need to see that those powers should cause the minimum addition to human unhappiness. Because the hon. Gentleman opposite thinks that somebody once wrote some poisonous articles, is that any reason why that somebody should have to go through almost intolerable sufferings? There may be people who think that the hon. Gentleman has written poisonous articles.

Mr. Driberg: May I say that my own political prejudice is against the Axis and its agents, who have caused this suffering to come on the world?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am very grateful indeed for that interruption, but it is a curious commentary on the hon. Gentleman's argument that this was not a war between States but only a war between ideas. He now says that his only political prejudice is against two enemy States. This country will be for ever disgraced and this House will certainly begin very rapidly to lose power unless, during and through whatever crisis there may be, there continue to be some men in this House who think that, when the Executive has to be given added powers, it becomes all the more their duty to see that those powers are used to the minimum danger to our constituted liberties and with the minimum increase of human unhappiness. That is the first principle which I would ask hon. Gentlemen to accept and upon which I particularly ask the Home Office to reflect.
This is the second point: that this principle becomes far more urgent in days when those who, naturally, set themselves up, as a rule, as the fuglemen of liberty, when they are clearly turning obscurantist and have gone so far in the direction of becoming obscurantist and assumptionist that they cease even to endeavour to disguise it. Perhaps not all hon. Members who happen to be present this afternoon have happened to read the OFFICIAL


REPORT every day for the last month. I did not know that this Debate was coming on, and I have not brought my references, but it happened to catch my eye that, day after day, somebody or other, almost always somebody extremely Left in sympathies, would ask of some Minister or other, some question or other, always tending to the suggestion that some paper, book, pamphlet or meeting ought to be suppressed. When I began to notice it I took the trouble, last Saturday, to sit down and write out a list. I have not brought it to-day because I did not know that this was coming on. I assure hon. Members that it is rather staggering when you look at it. Time after time, it is suggested that the Secretary of State should suppress meetings, or a paper control be used against a pamphlet, or so on. Let me say, lest I should be interrupted by the farmyard noisemongers opposite, that—[Interruption]—not from political prejudice—

Mr. Reakes: On a point of Order. Is the remark made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) a proper remark for an hon. Member to make?

Mr. Gallacher: Take no notice of him. He is just an ignorant upstart.

Mr. Speaker: I did not really understand the meaning of the hon. Gentleman's words.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am perfectly willing to withdraw any suggestion which hon. Gentlemen opposite found offensive and I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, if what I said was not perspicuous. I have not the least desire to be offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I meant to suggest that there are those whose principal line of argument is making loud noises when they hear something put forward to which they are not accustomed and I endeavoured to use a shorthand phrase to indicate that. I am sorry if the implications of it may have seemed offensive to some. What I endeavoured to say was that the more it becomes clear that obscurantism is becoming conscious and unashamed among those who would naturally be supposed to be the principal critics of an administration at all tempted to interfere with liberty, the more in those circumstances, does it become important, that there should be some Members of this House who do consider it a duty to watch

the exercise of those administrative powers.
And even if it were shown that these administrative powers had up to now, that is for something over three years, always been used with absolute infallibility, without ever one case of excess—even if that were true, yet it would remain the duty of this House to find some men who would watch that use continuously and challenge it continually. That is the second proposition which I ask the House to accept, and on which, I hope, the Front Bench will reflect, and on which I hope very much indeed, that those inside the Home Office will reflect. From it there arises a third proposition; This is the reason why I am sorry that the Home Secretary was kept from us to-day by more urgent business. It becomes necessary that Ministers when questioned or criticised on this subject should be peculiarly scrupulous to argue with us, to debate with us, and not in any way to endeavour to bully us, or to frighten us or to deride us out of what we regard as our duty.
I would ask my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench to draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to Questions and answers—I am sorry I have not given notice of this but I did not know it was coming up—between the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Maldon on 4th February. I would ask whether the Home Secretary does not, on consideration, think there should be some explanation. The Home Secretary was asked about a proposed meeting at a London theatre and whether he would take steps to prevent the holding of such a meeting as likely to provoke a breach of the peace. I had not the foggiest notion by what people it was going to be held or why or what it was about. I have no prejudice in the matter. The Home Secretary said that watch was being kept and that there was no reason to apprehend disorder and that it would be premature for him to decide then whether there was sufficient grounds for prohibiting the meeting under Defence Regulation 39F or E—I forget which. He was asked by Supplementary Question whether he would bear in mind a deplorable exhibition of hooliganism at Finsbury, where the memorial of Lenin was broken up and so on. The organisation referred to in the original Question was alleged to advocate peace by negotiation with Hitler, and to


distribute pro-Nazi, anti-Parliamentary and anti-Semitic propaganda. In reply to the Supplementary Question the Home Secretary said:
I will certainly look into the incident to which the hon. Member refers. If it is true it is much to be deplored"—
He then said:
but I am between two fires. The hon. Member"—
that is the hon. Member for Maldon—
wants me to be harsher, and there are other hon. Members sitting near me who are always anxious that I should be much more lenient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1943; col. 1046, Vol. 386.]
It may be true we ought to desire amendment now of these Regulations; I am not quite sure about that. I am quite sure that we ought to desire the Home Secretary and his officials very carefully and with really open minds at least once a year to consider whether the time has not come. I am still more certain that whether the Regulations are amended or not, we should be continually anxious for assurance that they are being well administered, and being administered in the best possible spirit. I suggest that for the Home Secretary to suggest that hon. Members who are interested in subjects of this sort are anxious that he should be more lenient to advocates of peace by negotiation with Hitler, to distributors of pro-Nazi, anti-Parliamentary and anti-Semitic propaganda, to defacers of historical memorials, to placarders of Fascist slogans, I do think that for such suggestions to be made, is unfair and an unnecessary hindrance to the proper performance of their duties by private Members of this House. I beg the Front Bench in general and my right hon. Friend in particular to ask His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State whether it ought not to be clear that what seemed to be the obvious innuendoes in that remark should be explained away and whether, quite honestly, those of us who are genuinely anxious in this matter for nothing except the maximum of liberty and the maximum of human kindness can really be 100 per cent. sure about the administration of these Regulations so long as language of that sort is to be used.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the hon. Member a question? During the time of the Finnish War there were continually suggestions that I should be, or would be,

put in gaol. If I had been put in gaol, would we have got any of this feeling expressed from the hon. Member or his friends?

Sir I. Albery: May I answer? I was one of the Members in this House who protested in the case of the "Daily Worker."

Mr. Muff: I will not follow the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) at too great a length, except to say that we do not want these questions coming up once a year, but if necessary once a month, or as often as necessary. Therefore I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) for keeping this question alive and for showing that this House is at all times ready to protect the liberties—I agree, the contracted liberties—of those who may be, for the time being, termed internees. An hon. Member invoked great memories of the past, names of the past. Again, we very ordinary Members in these days do not need remembrances of that nature, or do not even need prodding. I should like to remind the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University—in fact, it is the first time I mention something which concerns me in my personal duties—that I was actually the first Member of Parliament to visit what is called a detention camp. That was a long time ago now. I had the experience of having to visit over 400 members of the British Union of Fascists. They were all Britishers. I had liberty to talk to them as I wished, and every one of them to talk to me. Their grievance was that the Advisory Committee should work more quickly. I made a report in my capacity as a prison visitor that these men should have the right to have their cases reviewed as often as they liked. I well remember one charming young fellow coming up to me. He said, "Is it fair, sir, that I should be here in this place because I am the younger brother of my brother?" I said, "Who is your brother, laddie?" He said, "My brother is William Joyce." British justice said he had no right to be kept in a detention camp because he was the younger brother of his brother. I remember my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom speaking of the mental torture of men and women in prison when they were being blitzed. In my special favourite prison we see that everybody is at any rate under shelter.


I expect that at Brixton protection is, given to all prisoners who are there under 18B, or otherwise—

Sir A. Southby: I was referring to Holloway. At Holloway the prisoners were not kept in their cells, but came down to the lower corridor. But they were not in shelter.

Mr. Muff: I agree that there was a grievance at Holloway, The hon. and gallant Member should know whether it is now put right; I would know if it were my prison. I found in prison an Italian boy, aged 16. I asked the Home Office, "What right have you to keep this boy in prison? He should be at school." They admitted that they had made a mistake, and he was sent back to school. I found a Member of Parliament in my favourite prison—not a British Member of Parliament, but one of the hon. Members for Prague. The Home Office said that they had sent him to Leeds Prison to cure his rheumatism. I thought that that was rather far-fetched. I possess a certain nuisance value, and I pressed my right hon. Friend to let him out, which he did. I visited Brixton Prison. Hon. Members know that under 18B the internees in Brixton Prison are in a separate part of the prison. While they are not living delectably, I thought that in so far as prison can be made acceptable, these people, who on that day were sunbathing and indulging in squash rackets and other exercises, had found paths in places which, if not pleasant, were at any rate tolerable. I found an hon. Member there. He said, "What are you doing here; have you come to visit So-and-so"—mentioning a distinguished internee in Brixton. I said "No, I have come to visit an unknown." It was a ship's steward, who had asked me to go and see him; and, to' his great surprise, I went. Thanks to the innate sense of justice of the Home Office he got 80 per cent. of what he wanted. I will tell you what the other 20 per cent. was. His petition to my right hon. Friend was, "Will you please intern my wife?" The reply was, "I have no power to intern this lady, because, as far as we know, she has committed no crime against this country." This lady is sitting in sad loneliness in a nice place, while her husband has gone back to the Isle of Man.

Mr. Boothby: Do you know what he is interned for?

Mr. Muff: I am not entitled, even as a Member of Parliament, to ask why a person is interned, but I am entitled not only to ask but to demand that every internee shall know why he is interned and have his case reviewed at reasonable intervals. I put a case before the Home Secretary only to-day of another internee who wants to get married. I suggested to the Home Secretary, in a moment of frivolity, that he should act as best man. But they cannot get married, and I am now going to explain to the lady why she cannot get married. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising this subject, and I hope they will continue their good work. I know that wherever there is a semblance of a case for justice for any man, woman, or child, this honourable House will respond.

Mr. Silverman: This Debate has wandered a long way from the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) wished to raise. That was the very narrow and limited point as to whether Sir Barry Domvile should have been allowed to send to "The Times," for publication if the Editor of "The Times" thought fit to grant space, the letter which the hon. Member read. I cannot see what harm the public interest would have suffered if the letter had been allowed to reach the Editor of "The Times," and if he had been allowed to exercise his discretion, which he must exercise under the Defence Regulations, of deciding whether the letter should be published or not. I do not say, and I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gravesend would say, that people interned under Regulation 18B should be allowed to write any letters they like, to write any articles they like, or to write any books they like, during their detention. If the hon. Member did say that I would say part company with him.

Sir I. Albery: I definitely stated that I recognise that censorship was necessary.

Mr. Silverman: If the case of my hon. Friend rested on the particular letter which he read, I repeat that I do not see why the Home Secretary should have raised all this fuss and bother about it. It seems to me that the letter was purely concerned with the gentleman's criticisms of the machinery of the Regulation; and either his points are right, in which case they ought to be published, or they are


wrong, in which case they could be published and replied to without any danger to the public interest. But the discussion has gone farther, into a discussion of 18B itself. I do not complain about that. I myself have frequently taken part in Debates in which I have criticised the machinery of 18B because it has not seemed the best machinery for its purpose. What brought me to my feet to-day was the tendency which seemed to be creeping into this Debate for Members to express the view that there was something wrong with Regulation 18B itself. I have never held that view. I recognise that nearly everybody who has spoken in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend has begun by saying, "I do not ask you to abolish Regulation 18B." What does that involve? Why do you want Regulation 18B? Everybody seems to admit that he does want it. If it is agreed that 18B is necessary for the Executive to have, it is agreed that people are to be detained without trial, are to be detained without charge, are to be detained indefinitely, or at any rate while the war lasts, or while we are in danger. All that is involved in the admission that Regulation 18B is a necessary power for the Executive to have, and it is a little irrelevant to talk about detention in prison during air raids on London. If a detention is justified, it is none the less justified because the enemy chooses the particular period of the detention to make an air raid on London. If the detention is unjustified, then the man ought to be at liberty, even if there is no air raid on London. The point of detention during air raids on London is entirely irrelevant.
This is a war of ideas. Let there be no mistake about it. As the war progresses people are inclined to allow that essential fact to be obscured. It is a war for certain ideas; it is a war against certain ideas. It is one of the ironies of history—this is not the first time it has happened by any means—that the fight for essential principles of liberty should centre round the persons of people who do not believe in it. What are the ideas against which we are fighting? One is that it is wrong for people to hold views other than those the Executive hold and to express them. Another is that it is wrong for people with political views obnoxious to the Executive to assemble together, to organise political activity,

political propaganda, persuasion of every kind, in support of those ideas and, if they convince the majority of their fellow citizens that their ideas are right, to have that opinion translated, through democratic machinery, into legislation and to become the law of the land and part of the political, legal and social order under which we live.
Another of the ideas against which we are fighting is that some particular race, by some kind of self-selection, is entitled to dominate all other people and to put the world to torment in order that they may dominate it. These are some of the ideas against which we are fighting, and if there are people in this country who share those ideas, however honestly and sincerely, and with whatever good faith, it is right that the rest of us who are pledged to fight these ideas to the death should not take the risk of allowing them to be at liberty during the war in order that, perhaps in perfect good faith, they might act in accordance with their ideas which are the ideas against which we are fighting. That is the case for 18B. It is no good talking about particular individuals and records. Their good records are completely irrelevant. Indeed, their good records may in some cases be the very justification of their detention. Was there anybody in the armed service of the French Republic who had a more distinguished record than Marshal Pétain? (HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.") There may be one or two. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of French military history, but I should have thought that before June, 1940, there would be few people in this country who would not have described Marshal Pétain in the same eulogistic terms as we applied to Sir Barry Domvile.

Sir A. Southby: Marshal Pétain was always defeatist.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think it matters whether he was defeatist or not. The point I am making is that his distinguished record is that his loyalty, if you like, to his country, his patriotism, if you like, did not prevent him from having a social, economic and political outlook which rendered him incapable of resisting his country's enemies at the time when his country's forces were at their weakest, What prevented France from


resisting was not the lack of men, arms or aeroplanes, but the lack of the political will to resist, the political will having been undermined by exactly those ideas, or something very like them, against which the war is being fought. These ideas against which we are fighting, which are drowning Europe in blood, will cost before this war is over 20,000,000 lives. They will render whole areas of Europe desolate and destitute. It cannot be wondered that, if there are people in this country who share those ideas, it is better for them and better for us that they should not have the opportunity at critical moments or at other moments to undermine the will of the vast majority of their fellow citizens to resist to the uttermost the domination of these ideas which they share in the world.

Sir I. Albery: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member has said, but the whole point we are raising is whether there is proof that they do in fact still share those views, and whether they have had any opportunity of proving that, even if they did once share them, they do not share them any longer.

Mr. Silverman: I have ventured to speak as I have done just because the hon. Member and others know very well that I am one of the keenest critics of the machinery and operation of this Regulation in the House of Commons. I have never been afraid to say so. I say so now. It is a mistake that the Home Secretary and his predecessor should have put themselves into the position of being open to personal criticism by reason of these matters when they could and ought to have protected themselves by other authority. I am sure that the machinery under Regulation 18B frequently results in injustice. I have never seen why a man who is accused should not be able to consult his solicitor in private. I do not see it now. I have never been able to see why, if the State is prepared to prove that Mr. "A" or Colonel "X" shares these political ideas and his activities in the past have shown that he shares them, the detainee should not be told why the Secretary of State thinks so, and should have the opportunity of some third party judgment so that there might be some judicial or quasi judicial inquiry between the Home Secretary and the detainee to

see whether there are in fact reasonable grounds for supposing that that particular person is in that class or not. I do not know why that is not done. A great deal of trouble would be avoided if that were done. I cannot see what harm would be done. Debates on this subject would cease if only the Home Secretary could bring himself to do that. I did not want to repeat that to-day because I hoped that previous contributions I had made to these Debates would make it unnecessary for me to do so.
I repeat now, that I stand by everything I have said on these points, and I would add, with regard to detainees under Regulation 12 (5) (a) the position is even stronger than it is under 18B which applies to British subjects. There is no tribunal, there is no legal representation and any improvement in legal consultation is not to apply to them. I am certain from the number of cases that I have been asked to consider that there are some friendly aliens, whose ideas are all on our side and who do not share in the least any of the ideas against which we are fighting, for reasons not merely that they do not know, but for reasons that the Home Secretary does not know either. Acting, as he must do, not merely on the evidence of secret police, but all too frequently on the evidence of foreign secret police, I do not know why the Home Secretary does not provide himself with the opportunity of a third-party judgment and of extending the rights of accused persons to a proper hearing, proper judgment and proper consideration of what evidence there is. I hope he will take an early opportunity of reconsidering all these matters, especially in the light of the new fortunes of the war. I do not share in the least any doubts of any hon. Member of this House about the Tightness of the existence of these powers or the doubts anybody may have that if there are people, no matter how distinguished, patriotic or loyal their records may be, who share these ideas which have poisoned civilisation and which are drowning it in blood, they ought to be kept in detention until the danger to civilisation is passed.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): We have had a Debate which has ranged a great deal wider than the subject matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Graves-


end (Sir I. Albery) gave notice he intended to raise and which referred to a very limited point. However, I do not complain, because the Debate has been interesting and well-balanced; it has touched upon the whole question of Defence Regulation 18B, its administration by the Home Secretary, the conditions under winch people are detained, and the merits of the detention of Admiral Sir Barry Domvile. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I am not prepared to meet a case of which I have not had any notice, and I do not intend, therefore, to cover the whole question of Defence Regulation 18B. But I would point out to our critics, who are not quite so numerous as they were a year or two ago, two general matters which I think they might bear in mind.
The first is this, that whereas the total number of persons detained under this Regulation was at one time in excess of 1,750, to-day it is in the neighbourhood of 500, of whom a considerable number are persons of hostile origin. That is a measure of the increasing confidence which the Government feel in the ability of our country to meet every danger which may beset it, whether from within or without. We have even reached the point at the moment of considering the release of individuals who are not prepared to put their cases again before the Advisory Committee. We have reached this point, in pursuing the policy, of endeavouring to release, or to procure the release of, every individual who can be released without danger to the State. The second general consideration which I would like hon. Members always to bear in mind is that the Advisory Committee, which has now been operating since the middle of 1940, has been presided over throughout by Mr. Justice Birkett, and anyone who knows anything of his record, either in politics, or at the Bar, or on the bench, must realise that he is not the sort of man to lend himself to any kind of Gestapo practice. You could not possibly find a man who was more anxious not only to do justice but to see that justice was done. I, therefore, ask hon. Members not to believe every statement which they hear made on behalf of detained persons, because they have only heard one side of the case—

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to interrupt to be tiresome, but really to clear up a point. When my right hon. Friend speaks of Sir Norman Birkett seeing justice is done, he is, of course, using a technical phrase. I am sure he means the House to suppose that Sir Norman Birkett is concerned to see that justice is done not in the technical sense but to see that the administration is carried out without too much inequity.

Mr. Peake: What I said was that I am sure hon. Members realise that nobody is more anxious than Sir Norman Birkett to see that justice is done, and I mean precisely what I said.
The limited point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend concerned the interception by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of a letter, dated 11th January, written by Admiral Sir Barry Domvile to "The Times" newspaper. This is a particular case, but it does have general implications, and general considerations must be borne in mind in considering it. Let me say, in the first place, that although my hon. Friend read the letter, the contents of the letter had nothing whatever to do with the Home Secretary's decision that it should not be forwarded to the paper in question—nothing whatever. The contents of the letter contain a travesty of the truth so far as the procedure in Admiral Sir Barry Domvile's case before the Advisory Committee was concerned. I have studied the transcript, and it does not bear any relation at all to the account given in the letter which Admiral Sir Barry Domvile wrote. Let me again emphasise the fact that the contents of that letter had nothing whatever to do with the Home Secretary's decision to stop it going forward. If the letter had been nothing more than to say that Admiral Sir Barry Domvile had heard the cuckoo on 15th April, the letter would have been intercepted in exactly the same way, for reasons which I will now give to the House.
We have to deal with the question not as being a question of a letter from one particular detainee to a particular newspaper; we have to deal with it on the basis of treating all papers alike, whether it be "The Times," "The People," or the "Daily Mirror," and whether it be from Admiral Sir Barry Domvile or any other person who is deained, and quite


regardless of the contents of the matter in the letter. If we were to look at these letters and censor their contents, deleting some passages and so forth, we should put an impossible task upon the Home Office—certainly a task which the Home Office would not be ready to undertake. We are not ready to undertake the censorship of expressions of opinion, and I think it would be a sorry day for the country if that duty were ever entrusted to a Home Secretary or to any other Government Department. Letters from people detained under Regulation 18B have, of course, to be looked at from a security point of view, because some of these people are in possession of very secret information. We have to make sure in some cases that that information does not pass outside; but subject to a security check, any expression of opinion or any statement of fact contained in a letter by an 18B detainee is allowed to pass, and we have to apply that principle in dealing with communications intended by them for publication. We cannot, in my view, exercise a censorship, and it is, therefore, a question of either allowing all communications to go forward from any detainee to any newspaper, or of stopping them all and allowing no communications to go forward from detainees to newspapers.
Moreover, I think the House will observe that we cannot draw the line, if we are going to draw the line, at letters to newspapers. What is the difference between a letter to a newspaper and an article written for a newspaper, and how could we possibly distinguish between the two? If you allow letters to pass, you have got to allow articles; I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend suggested that Sir Barry Domvile might contribute a series of articles to the Press on naval strategy. If you allow articles, it seems to me you have to allow pamphlets, and if you allow pamphlets you have to allow books as well. In point of fact you arrive at the position in which you say mat persons detained under Regulation 18B may conduct all such propaganda as is not actually a contravention of the law—

Mr. Pickthorn: Like John Bunyan.

Mr. Peake: —during the period of their detention. The hon. Member for Gravesend went so far as to say that Sir Barry

Domvile would not be allowed to write articles. Of course, any person detained under Regulation 18B can write anything he pleases. We encourage them to do so. We provide them with the necessary materials. I have on my table at the Home Office at the present time a novel written by a person detained under Regulation 18B.

Sir A. Southby: What is going to happen to it?

Mr. Peake: Certainly, it will not be published during that person's detention because we do not believe it is right or proper when, under the terms of the Regulation, the Home Secretary considers it necessary to exercise control over people by keeping them in detention, that they should be at liberty during the period of that control to spread whatever propaganda they may please upon any subject under the sun.

Sir A. Southby: If the hon. Gentleman's argument means anything, it means that the works of John Bunyan and a good deal of the works of St. Paul would never have seen the light.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has that particular book in his possession, will he get possession of the book I wrote when I was in Wandsworth Gaol and forward it to me?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly refer to the hon. Member's work, I did not know it was contained in the archives of the Home Office.

Mr. Gallacher: They will not give it up.

Mr. Butcher: Is it not the case that the late Mr. W. T. Stead was actually imprisoned for some agitation but continued the agitation on which he was engaged from the prison?

Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot answer questions about the history of Mr. W. T. Stead.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said that when the Home Secretary decided it was necessary to exercise control over a person it would be impossible to allow him to publish an article or a novel. But I should have thought that as long as the Home Secretary was controlling that person, in a sense approved of


by him, and preventing that person from doing anything he ought not to do, it would not be necessary to continue to control him in the exercise of functions which would do no harm.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that persons detained under Regulation 18B come under three classes. They are persons over whom, in the first place, the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe it is necessary to exercise control. That is common to all cases of detention under Regulation 18B, and unless you believe that those powers are exercised in bad faith by the Home Office, then you must accept the view that my right hon. Friend has some reasonable cause to exercise control over these persons. But in addition to that requirement, the person has got to fall into one of these three classes: either he must be of hostile origin or association, or secondly, he must have been recently concerned in acts prejudicial to the defence of the Realm, or thirdly, he must have been a member of an organisation which is subject to foreign influence or control and which might be used for purposes prejudicial to the war effort. Those are the three classes of persons detained under Regulation 18B, and to my mind it would be wholly unreasonable to allow such persons to carry on, while under detention, a constant stream of propaganda of any sort or kind.

Captain Godfrey Nicholson: Has control been defined? Is the Home Secretary tied to a particular definition of the word "control"?

Mr. Peake: The meaning of control seems to me to be perfectly clear. It is necessary that they should be subject to physical restraint. That is the reason why they have been detained.

Captain Nicholson: I do not want to be difficult, but if the restraint were purely a physical one, a person might still be at liberty to edit a journal. There might be all sorts of restraints. It would be interesting to know if there is a definition of it.

Mr. Peake: It is clear that these are persons whom it is necessary to keep in detention of some kind or other. Their freedom of movement must be limited in such a way that they shall not go where

they please. Their physical liberty is confined to the area of the detention camp or the prison in which they happen to be. As far as expressions of opinion by them are concerned, the position is as follows. They can write to their friends or their, relatives and say whatever they like. They can also write to their Members of Parliament in exactly the same way and letters to Members of Parliament are unlimited either in their content or in their length or in their frequency. They are not rationed in any way. Any hon. Member can get up, as the hon. Member for Gravesend did to-day, and read the contents of a letter from Sir Barry Domvile which my right hon. Friend had refused to allow to be sent to a newspaper.

Mr. Driberg: What is the position of editors vis-à-vis the ban on letters to the Press, because obviously it is perfectly easy for a detainee to write a letter to an editor known to him personally and to send it to the editor's private address, or for that matter for a Member of Parliament to hand a letter to an editor?

Mr. Peake: There is nothing my right hon: Friend can do to stop that happening.

Mr. Driberg: Are they able to publish such letters?

Mr. Peake: Obviously, that must be a matter for the judgment of the editors, who are for the most part responsible persons, and as regards hon. Members, if they choose to read out letters from persons in detention, they are, of course, at liberty to do so. It is a matter for their own judgment and their own responsibility.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Suppose that a distinguished naval officer detained under Regulation 18B were to write an article of great value in these exacting times on naval strategy and tactics, what would be the procedure of the Home Secretary in dealing with such an article in order to make it available in the interests of the defence of the country?

Mr. Peake: Let us suppose that someone detained under 18B had something of great value which he wished to communicate. There are at any rate two channels obviously open to him. One is to send it to the Home Secretary himself, and the other to send it to a Member of


Parliament, who can bring it to the notice of the Government or, it he so desires, procure publication for it. I cannot accept the view that the public interest can suffer because we do not allow letters, which are bound to become pamphlets and which are bound to become books, to be published by persons detained under Defence Regulations.

Mr. John Dugdale: Why is it not possible to have censors who can say that certain things can come out and certain things cannot?

Mr. Peake: There are two objections to a censorship, not on questions of fact but on expressions of opinion. In the first place, we should require a very substantial staff at the Home Office to carry that out. These persons who are detained are not like convicted prisoners. They do not have to engage in useful occupations. They are free to sit about all day writing articles, books and propaganda. If all that had to be subjected to scrutiny in the Home Office as to whether it should be allowed out or not, it would impose a heavy burden on the officials.

Mr. Reakes: Can that reply possibly be regarded as valid when we have a postal censorship for prisoners of war, and, if it is possible to censor their letters, what possible objection can there be to at least considering the setting-up of a similar censorship for internees?

Mr. Peake: The short answer is that persons who write to prisoners of war are, generally speaking, not trying to cause the maximum amount of trouble to the censorship. They are trying to avoid giving useful information to the enemy. Many of these persons are anxious to give the maximum amount of trouble to the authorities, and they would spend their time in devising matters of propaganda in their articles, pamphlets, and books, which would give an enormous amount of work and a very heavy burden of responsibility to the authorities. There are two choices. One is to allow all matter for publication to come out of the internment camp. The other is to forbid it all. On balance we think the latter course is the one to be preferred. There is a safeguard, because each of these detainees can send any matter he pleases to Members of Parliament.

Sir A. Southby: Is it not a fact that communications by detainees to their

families are subject to scrutiny and censorship, but that letters to Members of Parliament are not subject to censorship?

Mr. Peake: They are all, I think, subject to censorship on questions of fact for security reasons.

Mr. Stephen: Do I understand that letters to Members of Parliament also are subject to censorship for security reasons? The right hon. Gentleman said some of these people have very special information which it would be dangerous to allow to get out. I was wondering whether it could be sent out to a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Peake: Speaking from memory, the only case I can remember where a Member of Parliament complained to me that a letter to him from someone detained under 18B had been censored and a paragraph deleted was a case where it was not clear on the face of the envelope that the addressee was a Member of Parliament. If it had been known to the censorship that it was a Member of Parliament, I feel sure that they would have allowed the matter to pass.

Mr. Silverman: Is there not a censorship in the camp itself, and then the ordinary postal censorship after they reach this country? I am thinking of a case of the communication from the Isle of Man which obviously had been censored, and the explanation given me was that it was subjected to the ordinary postal censorship but was not censored at the camp.

Mr. Peake: My information and recollection are that it is about a year and a half since any postal censorship was undertaken at the camp. It is all now done centrally at Liverpool.

Mr. Driberg: Here is a letter from a detainee at Brixton addressed to me. It bears scribbled initials in red ink.

Mr. Peake: Certainly a letter would be opened. I did not wish to convey that letters to Members were not opened or looked at, but nothing is erased from them.

Captain Nicholson: It has been stated that complaints as to conditions in prison are not allowed. Can my right hon. Friend deny that?

Mr. Peake: I should like to look into it. As far as convicted prisoners are concerned, the rule has always been that if they made a statement that was deliberately false, for instance, that the Governor of the prison was a drunken swine, a statement of that sort would not be allowed to pass out, at any rate until the Home Secretary had had an opportunity of investigating the facts of the case. There may be cases where detained persons have made similar statements about officers in whose charge they were, and they may have been deleted from

letters. I should not like to say offhand whether any statements of that kind had been deleted or not.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there any difference in principle between allowing Sir Barry Domvile to write an article for "The Times" and allowing him to come out and speak at a public meeting?

Mr. Peake: Quite frankly, I cannot see very much myself.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.